If the betting markets are "right", then something they give a 10% chance of happening should happen 10% of the time. So anecdotal examples like this cannot be used as meaningful evidence. You have to show that, >>X% of the time, something they give an X% chance will happen. If you can show that, it will mean that it is possible to make money simply by backing random outsiders in every market. I'm very doubtful that this is the case.
The only scenarios where it's meaningful to say that a market is "wrong" are: (a) when you have a better informed subjective probability estimate than the crowd setting the market; or (b) where there is another resource that systematically outperforms the markets (by enough to overcome the bookies' cut/commission). (b) is the more interesting possibility, and I think it's plausible, although if so I'm surprised that nobody here has written an article about it.
We know that the state pension in the UK is relatively low and they is the biggest part of the benefits bill. It's more meaningful to look at the state pension separately from long-term sickness and other working-age benefits.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
Mm, so we should bring back the University seats for graduates to have a second vote? And special Trade Union MPs for specific sets of unions?
No I meant in the Lords, not the Commons. Just as we have specific Lords seats for Bishops ("Lords Spiritual")
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
It is your principal but not all conservatives by some distance share it
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
Osaka is a big and fairly prosperous city
When I say “poor” I don’t mean absolutely poor. I mean relatively poor compared to Western Europe and North America and - definitely relatively poor compared to what I expected
I haven’t been back in 3 decades and I thought this hi tech country wouid have continued racing ahead. But it feels exactly like it did only the people are older and the tech is now behind, if anything
(Eg lots of places with no contactless indeed no card payments)
Japan was always the future ... let's hope it's not still that.
I'd be curious, though, how Tokyo/Osaka compares with London/Leeds ? (I've never visited Japan, but would very much like to.)
Both about a 2 hour train journey from each other. But Osaka is vast. Leeds looks quite parochial and quaint by comparison. There’s no view of Mt Fuji from the LNER Azuma sadly.
Yes, there isn't a good direct comparison - the population of the metropolitan region is greater than the entire West Midlands.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
Why not just add a few Imams and Hindu and Sikh priests and Pentecostal and Baptist ministers and a few more Rabbis alongside the Bishops in the Lords, it is not that difficult.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
A requirement MPs work at least 5 years outside Westminster and in a job which is not a SPAD/political researcher/policy wonk/lobbyist/councillor might not be a bad thing
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Lol, that post is hilarious. The Conservative Party, like any other does not need to be completely rooted in the past. The only fundamental is resisting change for the sake of change. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion the Conservatives should never have voted for any constitutional change at all. You also don't seem to know your own party's history. It is a liberal party at its core and has regularly reinvented itself. I would say that TSE seems much more of a Conservative than you are. You have turned into a Johnson worshiping parody of a Tory, with views that seem more aligned to MAGA than Conservatism.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
I realise that you and @HYUFD are in an eternal war to the death which neither can win, but have you considered he might be right? There's no obvious reason why they should be removed and there are too many members of the political class in the Lords already.
@Leon - as a fellow middle aged white male, would be interested in your take on racism there. Japan is the only country I have been to where I have suffered prejudice for my ethnicity. Being shooed away from sitting next to someone in a vacant seat on trains, that sort of thing. Quietly but very firmly, and in a way that says very clearly that they find me offensive. And it's more than just the well-publicised and understandable pushback against overtourism. This was on a run of the mill half empty Shinkansen. My spouse and I are quiet, considerate people. I wasn't exactly traumatised by it, but it was sobering.
The myth the danger of mobile phones and petrol pumps was thoroughly investigated when I worked at Shell, many years ago. No danger.
The legal comment was that, because of the ambulance chaser type lawyers, the previous advice should be left in place. Because the first thing that would happen after a fire at a petrol station, would be the lawyers claiming that The Big Oil company was responsible, due to bad advice. Cue decades of expensive litigation and repetitional damage.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
Is it time for my daily rant about the state of education?
If it will cheer @Northern_Al up I’m willing to throw in a prediction of Pakistan to win by an innings…
On the US, it is notable to me that there has been a glut of pro-R or R-affiliated pollsters doing swing state polls in the last period. It feels to me like this Harris wobble is in part affected or skewed by this. That’s not to say that she hasn’t had a couple of other poor polls too, but it’s very hard to read the tea leaves at the moment because of this effect. I don’t actually think the race has changed from where we were a few weeks ago, it’s still very tight but with a Dem edge - assuming that they’re not understating Trump again.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
There are no barriers to strongly religious people becoming MPs (or Lords) and therefore a Minister or PM (not Lords).
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
Mm, so we should bring back the University seats for graduates to have a second vote? And special Trade Union MPs for specific sets of unions?
No I meant in the Lords, not the Commons. Just as we have specific Lords seats for Bishops ("Lords Spiritual")
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
Why not just add a few Imams and Hindu and Sikh priests and Pentecostal and Baptist ministers and a few more Rabbis alongside the Bishops in the Lords, it is not that difficult.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
Oh please do it. I am sure Baroness May needs a really good laugh!!
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
The elite class has colonised everything, the ngo, quangos, media/publishing, universities, charities, statutory bodies, even many areas of business have been completely colonised by an ideology and value. Notice the BMJ slowly waking up to the fact it has some serious headbangers in areas of authority discrediting the organisation.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
I realise that you and @HYUFD are in an eternal war to the death which neither can win, but have you considered he might be right? There's no obvious reason why they should be removed and there are too many members of the political class in the Lords already.
No - I just do not see why Bishops should be in the Lords but then I have long since felt the Lords is wholly undemocratic
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
A requirement MPs work at least 5 years outside Westminster and in a job which is not a SPAD/political researcher/policy wonk/lobbyist/councillor might not be a bad thing
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
I am currently writing a header on why Gavin Williamson should be Tory leader.
Bit early in the day to be on those kinds of drugs surely?
Never mind getting rid of the BIshops. Get rid of the Lords,knighthoods and all the other POLITICAL crony based awards. William was knighted but lord knows what for and certainly not deserved.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
I always think that Eurostar Business is the one to go for as a solo traveller, if you don't go Standard. You get the lounge, fast track through "the line", and decent food. Premium has most of the price hike, and the only real benefit is OK food that you probably don't want.
With (business) flights, on the other hand, First is absolutely worth it for actual long haul (i.e. anything West Coast US and longer.) It's not so much the in-flight benefits (though they are good); it's being able to rock up in a comfy car at the special entrance and have members of staff deal with your passport/check-in etc while you get yourself sorted in the Concorde lounge. If you've got meetings at the other end, a spruce up in arrivals is a godsend. You feel quite human at the end of it. I don't fly any more if I can possibly help it, but we always pay for 1st now if we have to.
ETA: Domestic trains are ludicrous now. Even advance tickets are prohibitively expensive to take my family from e.g. CBG to LIV 1st. Even a CBG to OXF ticket is a stupid price.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
Why not just add a few Imams and Hindu and Sikh priests and Pentecostal and Baptist ministers and a few more Rabbis alongside the Bishops in the Lords, it is not that difficult.
We could do with some Jedis too. Baron Yoda would bring some balance to the House.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
I realise that you and @HYUFD are in an eternal war to the death which neither can win, but have you considered he might be right? There's no obvious reason why they should be removed and there are too many members of the political class in the Lords already.
And we both are conservatives but have considerable disagreements as I do not support the ERG or right
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
That's the wrong way around. I don't think anyone in the world thinks like this: I am a Tory, therefore these are my principles. (Or in this very peculiar case, I am a Tory, these were Tory principles 200 years ago, therefore these are my principles.) For literally everyone else, it goes: I believe x, y and z to be good (for reasons a, b and c), therefore I am party label P. Or no party at all. In this case, HYUFD believes in the crown, the hereditary peers and the bishops for reasons a, b and c and is therefore a Tory. What I'm interested in is what reasons a, b and c are. And don't say "because they're Tory principles" because that's circular logic.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
That’s the same for everything to do with energy. The only way to make fossil fuels appear more expensive is to simultaneously tax it and subsidise the alternatives.
Fossil fuel prices are artificially suppressed globally because unlike just about every other industry those that extract and burn them are not required to process and dispose of their primary industrial waste product (CO2) safely, at their own cost.
Imagine how cheap other industrial products would be if their manufacturers could just dump all their toxic waste in the nearby waterways.
This just allows you to add whatever figure you want to fossil fuels to make them look uncompetitive.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
I always think that Eurostar Business is the one to go for as a solo traveller, if you don't go Standard. You get the lounge, fast track through "the line", and decent food. Premium has most of the price hike, and the only real benefit is OK food that you probably don't want.
With (business) flights, on the other hand, First is absolutely worth it for actual long haul (i.e. anything West Coast US and longer.) It's not so much the in-flight benefits (though they are good); it's being able to rock up in a comfy car at the special entrance and have members of staff deal with your passport/check-in etc while you get yourself sorted in the Concorde lounge. If you've got meetings at the other end, a spruce up in arrivals is a godsend. You feel quite human at the end of it. I don't fly any more if I can possibly help it, but we always pay for 1st now if we have to.
If they won't lay on a private jet and luxury villa for me I'll see them on zoom.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Thanks. An educational post. It’s interesting that from an internal Met Office perspective it works. I am looking at the two organisations from the perspective of global brand and soft power, where NOAA data and content (blogs, analysis, even live info from hurricane hunter aircraft) is everywhere whereas the Met Office is like a best kept secret with infuriatingly limited public output.
I suppose it’s what the BBC could be if it concentrated on a small but successful and high quality output behind a premium subscription paywall.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
I always think that Eurostar Business is the one to go for as a solo traveller, if you don't go Standard. You get the lounge, fast track through "the line", and decent food. Premium has most of the price hike, and the only real benefit is OK food that you probably don't want.
With (business) flights, on the other hand, First is absolutely worth it for actual long haul (i.e. anything West Coast US and longer.) It's not so much the in-flight benefits (though they are good); it's being able to rock up in a comfy car at the special entrance and have members of staff deal with your passport/check-in etc while you get yourself sorted in the Concorde lounge. If you've got meetings at the other end, a spruce up in arrivals is a godsend. You feel quite human at the end of it. I don't fly any more if I can possibly help it, but we always pay for 1st now if we have to.
If they won't lay on a private jet and luxury villa for me I'll see them on zoom.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Interesting though that it seemingly took a dissonance opr at least discrepancy so close to home for him to confront the basic issue - the unfair representation of one sect of one religion which isn't even applicable to the UK as a whole. No Bishops of the Churches of Wales and Ireland, or the ECS, and no Presbyterian Moderators.
Although I am also suspicious that Sir Gav is just playing games, rather than being a true believer of disestablishment.
Of course he knows he hasn’t got the votes to kick out the clerics, and I don’t even know if he really wants to. But it will make life awkward for the Labour whips, as a fair few Labour backbenchers will want to back it. There are only so many goodies for whips to give out and punishments are counterproductive.
The more times Conservative can force a division for Labour the better. We saw this every time the SNP tried to force votes on Isreal / Gaza before the election - it was about splitting the Labour leadership from the footsoldiers not stopping suffering in the ME.
This is the part I least like about politics. Treating it as a game. But I guess like life it is an inevitable aspect.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
The elite class has colonised everything, the ngo, quangos, media/publishing, universities, charities, statutory bodies, even many areas of business have been completely colonised by an ideology and value. Notice the BMJ slowly waking up to the fact it has some serious headbangers in areas of authority discrediting the organisation.
Lol. "The elite class"? FFS. I guess the elite class is anyone you don't like who happens to be in a senior position. Angela Rayner seems to be way out of her depth, but she is Deputy PM, and a large amount of the lightweights in the cabinet and many in the previous government have not come from "elite" backgrounds. Once someone gets into a position of seniority they are part of an elite. I guess the only way to avoid that is to have everything run by committees and communes. I am sure it has been tried out before and did not work too well.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Interesting though that it seemingly took a dissonance opr at least discrepancy so close to home for him to confront the basic issue - the unfair representation of one sect of one religion which isn't even applicable to the UK as a whole. No Bishops of the Churches of Wales and Ireland, or the ECS, and no Presbyterian Moderators.
Although I am also suspicious that Sir Gav is just playing games, rather than being a true believer of disestablishment.
Of course he knows he hasn’t got the votes to kick out the clerics, and I don’t even know if he really wants to. But it will make life awkward for the Labour whips, as a fair few Labour backbenchers will want to back it. There are only so many goodies for whips to give out and punishments are counterproductive.
The more times Conservative can force a division for Labour the better. We saw this every time the SNP tried to force votes on Isreal / Gaza before the election - it was about splitting the Labour leadership from the footsoldiers not stopping suffering in the ME.
This is the part I least like about politics. Treating it as a game. But I guess like life it is an inevitable aspect.
Oh, the SNP were serious about suffering - just think who its leader was, for a start, and other events.
On the [edit] current issue of bashing the bishops, though, that's an interesting interpretation.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
"Hobby" is questionable. It depends what you want the Lords to be - an alternative democratic representation, say like Australia's Senate (regional and longer terms), an appointed 'house of experts and experience', or a mixture, or something else.
And what you want it to do.
Me, I think the revising functions work well, and the non-political / crossbench peers work well (eg Tanni-Grey Thompson), but the political side has more problems at the fringes.
I'm perhaps drawn to a hybrid model where there are appointed 'experts' who speak but don't have voting rights. That was a model I saw proposed by by friend Carl Gardner who way back was one of the lawyers who worked for Govt in framing iirc the Human Rights Act.
Like everything here, it will evolve not revolt.
Well I'm being slightly flippant. But only slightly. I am, though, irritated at the proffessionally religious having a dedicated spot in the political process as if their perspective was more valid than that of any other human.
I think the perspective of a Church of England Bishop may well be more valid, and better informed, than most other members of either the Lords or the Commons.
Take the Bishop of Newcastle. She is based in Newcastle and represents a regional view, unlike some Life Peers who seem to migrate to London often once appointed (based on a data review), and is responsible for overseeing key community leaders in every place in Newcastle Diocese - from Jesmond to the remotest village and the most deprived UPA. And she has routine contacts with a full range of people just through the networks she moves in, including a full range of community projects / organisations.
She receives a stipend of £46k per annum (plus pension, accommodation with the job TBF), compared to a basic MP who get twice as much (£91k?), plus a package, plus often an office supplement or a second job. And some of them, in about the top 5%, STILL spend their lives complaining about how poor they are. Bishops are closer to reality.
I wonder what would happen if the Lords did go 'elected', and the Church of England appointed one or two Bishops per region with an apostolate (= area of life of interest or focus) to Governance / Politics, who stood in the election? The dogmatic secularist lobby (not meaning you - more groups like the NSS), who exclusively get their traction through networks of public figures not elections, would do their nut - but they do that anyway even now.
The principled 'religious professional' objection remains, but I'm not sure it's as strong in reality as some would have us believe.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
A requirement MPs work at least 5 years outside Westminster and in a job which is not a SPAD/political researcher/policy wonk/lobbyist/councillor might not be a bad thing
Such as being DPP?
The DPP is not outside Westminster as it is located in Petty France - right in the heart of the government district.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
That’s the same for everything to do with energy. The only way to make fossil fuels appear more expensive is to simultaneously tax it and subsidise the alternatives.
Fossil fuel prices are artificially suppressed globally because unlike just about every other industry those that extract and burn them are not required to process and dispose of their primary industrial waste product (CO2) safely, at their own cost.
Imagine how cheap other industrial products would be if their manufacturers could just dump all their toxic waste in the nearby waterways.
This just allows you to add whatever figure you want to fossil fuels to make them look uncompetitive.
It just reflects a different worldview. Polluters should clean up their own mess or find less polluting ways to generate output. Same logic that sits behind rules like our modern slavery act, or the clean air act.
I’m guessing you’re not particularly bothered about climate change. On which logic of course we might as well drill drill drill.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
That's the wrong way around. I don't think anyone in the world thinks like this: I am a Tory, therefore these are my principles. (Or in this very peculiar case, I am a Tory, these were Tory principles 200 years ago, therefore these are my principles.) For literally everyone else, it goes: I believe x, y and z to be good (for reasons a, b and c), therefore I am party label P. Or no party at all. In this case, HYUFD believes in the crown, the hereditary peers and the bishops for reasons a, b and c and is therefore a Tory. What I'm interested in is what reasons a, b and c are. And don't say "because they're Tory principles" because that's circular logic.
What I want to know is why he isn't moaning about the abolition fo tithes, and why one can't buy and sell the advowsons to C of E parishes any more so one can't simply put one's own son or nephew (or these days daughter and niece) into the rectory.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
I am currently writing a header on why Gavin Williamson should be Tory leader.
Please don’t. I don’t want to find myself in full agreement with Hyufd about the Tory leadership.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
Mm, so we should bring back the University seats for graduates to have a second vote? And special Trade Union MPs for specific sets of unions?
No I meant in the Lords, not the Commons. Just as we have specific Lords seats for Bishops ("Lords Spiritual")
Okay, then, Lords Learned and Lords Proletarian?
Pretty much. I would have "Lords Spiritual" (faith leaders), "Lords Temporal" (ex politicians), your "Lords Learned" and "Lords Proletarian" (technically that might be "Lords Syndicate"), and ""Lords of Merit" (the guilds). A shit-ton of expertise and knowledge in one house. It's a brilliant idea...which is why it won't happen ☹️
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
You sound like a Tory Trump, raging about TINOs.
More like a Tea Party Republican of 10 years ago when RINO meant Republicans with moderate/modern views. For Trump RINO simply means Republicans not fully subjugated to him (yet).
They've had a couple of decades of stagnation. A bit like us.
Feels a lot worse than us. And indeed the stats show their stagnation has been three decades long
Japan feels poor - poorer than the UK It also feels old - mean age is 46: you can sense it: the lack of young people It also feels empty: it is depopulating. You can sense that as well
They are driving the same cars as they were when I lived here in the mid 90s
You're in Osaka. Try visiting (say)West Yorkshire for comparison.
I’m visiting West Yorkshire today. Much of it looks quite prosperous (my wife’s from Wetterby).
But this is a feature of declining economies like Japan. The capital city remains rich and cosmopolitan looking. The rot sets in first in the provincial cities and countryside. We see it here but you really see it strongly in poor countries with rich histories. Moscow vs Russia is probably the extreme, but there are lots of other examples.
That’s one thing you don’t yet see in France, Germany or these countries (or Italy, these days). The provinces mostly look fairly prosperous.
Much of West Yorkshire doesn't just look prosperous but is prosperous, very prosperous.
And much of it is deprived.
Go to Wetherby or Harewood and you get a very different impression than from Harehills or Seacroft.
There are similar variations in many, possibly most, areas in this country.
Perhaps its the concentration of who gets the benefits and which people they are concentrated on which is the issue.
We're regularly treated to graphs showing the UK spending less as a proportion of GDP than comparable countries.
Yet there must be areas where the UK spends more - why are people not so eager to show them.
This chart is 2021/22 - undoubtedly hugely distorted by the benefits paid during the disastrous pandemic, during which the Americans and Italians were particularly profligate. A much more interesting graph would be 2019 or 2024.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
Why not just add a few Imams and Hindu and Sikh priests and Pentecostal and Baptist ministers and a few more Rabbis alongside the Bishops in the Lords, it is not that difficult.
Because they would be unelected?
Not even India has unelected Hindu and Sikh priests in its parliament!
On the US, it is notable to me that there has been a glut of pro-R or R-affiliated pollsters doing swing state polls in the last period. It feels to me like this Harris wobble is in part affected or skewed by this. That’s not to say that she hasn’t had a couple of other poor polls too, but it’s very hard to read the tea leaves at the moment because of this effect. I don’t actually think the race has changed from where we were a few weeks ago, it’s still very tight but with a Dem edge - assuming that they’re not understating Trump again.
See, though, my comment upthread about Jon Ralston. He's the Nevada pollster whose infallibility Sir John Curtice would aspire to emulate, were he a Nevada pollster. For the first time in forever, he's unsure of how to call this one.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Thank you, it’s working 😆
To be fair, there are other compensations. I’m on a clean, modern electric train with ample legroom that’s comfortably full but not crowded and the scenery has been OK until five minutes ago when we got to Walsall.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
"Hobby" is questionable. It depends what you want the Lords to be - an alternative democratic representation, say like Australia's Senate (regional and longer terms), an appointed 'house of experts and experience', or a mixture, or something else.
And what you want it to do.
Me, I think the revising functions work well, and the non-political / crossbench peers work well (eg Tanni-Grey Thompson), but the political side has more problems at the fringes.
I'm perhaps drawn to a hybrid model where there are appointed 'experts' who speak but don't have voting rights. That was a model I saw proposed by by friend Carl Gardner who way back was one of the lawyers who worked for Govt in framing iirc the Human Rights Act.
Like everything here, it will evolve not revolt.
Well I'm being slightly flippant. But only slightly. I am, though, irritated at the proffessionally religious having a dedicated spot in the political process as if their perspective was more valid than that of any other human.
I think the perspective of a Church of England Bishop may well be more valid, and better informed, than most other members of either the Lords or the Commons.
Take the Bishop of Newcastle. She is based in Newcastle and represents a regional view, unlike some Life Peers who seem to migrate to London often once appointed (based on a data review), and is responsible for overseeing key community leaders in every place in Newcastle Diocese - from Jesmond to the remotest village and the most deprived UPA. And she has routine contacts with a full range of people just through the networks she moves in, including a full range of community projects / organisations.
She receives a stipend of £46k per annum (plus pension, accommodation with the job TBF), compared to a basic MP who get twice as much (£91k?), plus a package, plus often an office supplement or a second job. And some of them, in about the top 5%, STILL spend their lives complaining about how poor they are. Bishops are closer to reality.
I wonder what would happen if the Lords did go 'elected', and the Church of England appointed one or two Bishops per region with an apostolate (= area of life of interest or focus) to Governance / Politics, who stood in the election? The dogmatic secularist lobby (not meaning you - more groups like the NSS), who exclusively get their traction through networks of public figures not elections, would do their nut - but they do that anyway even now.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Thank you, it’s working 😆
To be fair, there are other compensations. I’m on a clean, modern electric train with ample legroom that’s comfortably full but not crowded and the scenery has been OK until five minutes ago when we got to Walsall.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Or just abolish the whole damn thing.
But that would be hard work and need thinking through. And we've only been on that for 100 years or so. So, in the meantime, lets have another reform that is not thought through but makes Labour MPs who are in the main professionals and pen pushers feel just a little bit radical, just for one day.
Scrap it entirely. Revising should be done in Commons committees and MPs held responsible if they write laws poorly, not rely on the Lords to make a silk purse from a sows ear.
Why should MPs in cttees be any better at scrutinising laws than they were before they voted on them?
The Lords at least has members who were not all politicians from professional and business life and the civic Sphere
IMO it should be a prerequisite that MPs have done a *proper job* previously. Sadly that would rule out a large part of the current Conservative Party and most of the Labour Party
A requirement MPs work at least 5 years outside Westminster and in a job which is not a SPAD/political researcher/policy wonk/lobbyist/councillor might not be a bad thing
Fireplace salesman?
The Tories are severely grating, so it might work ?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Interesting though that it seemingly took a dissonance opr at least discrepancy so close to home for him to confront the basic issue - the unfair representation of one sect of one religion which isn't even applicable to the UK as a whole. No Bishops of the Churches of Wales and Ireland, or the ECS, and no Presbyterian Moderators.
Although I am also suspicious that Sir Gav is just playing games, rather than being a true believer of disestablishment.
Of course he knows he hasn’t got the votes to kick out the clerics, and I don’t even know if he really wants to. But it will make life awkward for the Labour whips, as a fair few Labour backbenchers will want to back it. There are only so many goodies for whips to give out and punishments are counterproductive.
The more times Conservative can force a division for Labour the better. We saw this every time the SNP tried to force votes on Isreal / Gaza before the election - it was about splitting the Labour leadership from the footsoldiers not stopping suffering in the ME.
This is the part I least like about politics. Treating it as a game. But I guess like life it is an inevitable aspect.
Oh, the SNP were serious about suffering - just think who its leader was, for a start, and other events.
On the wider issue of bashing the bishops, though, that's an interesting interpretation.
Personally, my view of Stephen Flynn’s behaviour in February suggested that he was more interested in making life difficult for Labour (and Labour did everything they could - including skulduggery - to avoid that) then any improvement for the folks of Gaza. Although I appreciate other interpretation exist.
Perhaps its the concentration of who gets the benefits and which people they are concentrated on which is the issue.
We're regularly treated to graphs showing the UK spending less as a proportion of GDP than comparable countries.
Yet there must be areas where the UK spends more - why are people not so eager to show them.
This chart is 2021/22 - undoubtedly hugely distorted by the benefits paid during the disastrous pandemic, during which the Americans and Italians were particularly profligate. A much more interesting graph would be 2019 or 2024.
Also it conflates 2021 and 2022 for different countries, not like-for-like (especially when coming out of a pandemic). Similar to a graph I saw on Sky this morning conflating August and September inflation figures for different countries
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
It's not so much as an 'elite class' as an extrusion of homogenised managerial filler.
The NU10K are, sadly, quite dim on average. Consider Alison Rose - the head of a bank, who managed lose a "Tell The Truth" competition. With Nigel Fucking Farage.
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
I have long advocated that the approach to retirement is totally wrong. We have this system that is set up such that you work up to a certain age at full blast, then the next day all packed in. It obviously comes from the days when retirement was just for the lucky and you might get a couple of years before your snuffed it. It would be far better to have a system that encourages both the individual and organisations to a more gradual reduction in working hours, but working for more years.
Also in terms of productivity / business growth, having wise old heads still in the business a day or two a week, you don't instantly lose that knowledge and experience which can be invaluable. It allows for more gradual succession of staff.
My own father took early retirement, it was the worst thing that he did. He got fat, lazy, depressed. He took action and went back to work, not for the money, but to counter the other negative reasons. He then worked for another 15 years, but on a reducing scale (thanks to a very good employer) and I believe that has led to him still being generally very fit, healthy and mentally active even though he is very old now.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
That's the wrong way around. I don't think anyone in the world thinks like this: I am a Tory, therefore these are my principles. (Or in this very peculiar case, I am a Tory, these were Tory principles 200 years ago, therefore these are my principles.) For literally everyone else, it goes: I believe x, y and z to be good (for reasons a, b and c), therefore I am party label P. Or no party at all. In this case, HYUFD believes in the crown, the hereditary peers and the bishops for reasons a, b and c and is therefore a Tory. What I'm interested in is what reasons a, b and c are. And don't say "because they're Tory principles" because that's circular logic.
The standard conservative argument is that it has worked for centuries, so why mess with it?
Obviously that argument doesn't wash for a utopian radical like myself, but it's a pretty simple argument to make and understand. I don't know why people are giving HYUFD such a hard time over it.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
(AFAICS the main thing about flying First is that you are possibly going to get people like Lord Mandelson telling everyone anyone who will listen how important they are, and that they therefore have a right to get X Y or Z first.)
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
There are no barriers to strongly religious people becoming MPs (or Lords) and therefore a Minister or PM (not Lords).
But do we want more? The CoE bishops guarantee an island of non-belief in the Lords.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
So you’ve never visited New Street station before?
Because that is the bleakest station in the country.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Its market is also getting salami-sliced away.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
The "quite well paid" carry a disproportionate burden of tax, particularly if just over £100k. We have moved to a situation where those on moderate incomes pay very low tax rates compared with similar economies. This is a part of the problem for the Labour government as they have promised to not put up taxes on "working people" (whatever the feck that means). The reality is that though many people will claim "I paid my taxes all my life therefore I should get this, I should get that", a very large section of society will receive a lot more than they pay.
Yes the LibDem/Coalition policy adopted by the Conservatives of taking people out of tax by raising thresholds in the 2010s was a disaster. It increased the number of freeloaders who can vote for higher public spending without paying the taxes that result from it. And we wonder why it's so politically difficult to get out of the tax/spend/stagnate doom loop that we're currently in.
Part of the problem is that a lot of these “freeloaders“ as you describe them would be perfectly able to survive & even thrive without government handouts if rents weren’t so incredibly high relative to incomes.
Are in fact the true freeloaders here the property owning rentier classes sponging off the state at one remove via housing benefit payments that ultimately end up in their own pockets? I think you can make quite a strong case for that.
Blaming the poorer segments of society for the fact that rents are through the roof seems both unfair & also a misdirection - it’s easy to blame the “feckless poor”, less easy politically to point the finger at those who profit from them.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
And you wonder why the ROIC is in the single digits…
Just to be clear, I am think about costs. Not suggesting that the more work you do the more ROIC falls…
Although on reflection…
Dodgy analysis.
What you should look at is things like staff retention rates when you have decent benefits, expense allowances, and flexible working practices.
For example my employer makes sure you don’t have to use holiday allowance for routine medical appointments.
You save money in the long term with that approach.
All of which are completely unconnected to whether you actually need first class travel…
(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)
I'm not convinced by the need for First over Business !
Given we were talking trains, there’s no business class (except the Eurostar, which I’m taking next week - in standard).
Avanti West Coast has so-called "Premium Standard".
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
You aren't a Tory either but a former Blair voter and Boris hater
Re Hard Talk decision. Its a classic BBC decision, its all signally to the those that influence the narrative that something that is a bit high brow has to go because horrid cuts enforced upon us, when it will cost next to nothing to film, rather than making much harder decisions.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
I am currently writing a header on why Gavin Williamson should be Tory leader.
I would personally lead a 24/7 mutiny to remove him
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
I have long advocated that the approach to retirement is totally wrong. We have this system that is set up such that you work up to a certain age at full blast, then the next day all packed in. It obviously comes from the days when retirement was just for the lucky and you might get a couple of years before your snuffed it. It would be far better to have a system that encourages both the individual and organisations to a more gradual reduction in working hours, but working for more years.
Also in terms of productivity / business growth, having wise old heads still in the business a day or two a week, you don't instantly lose that knowledge and experience which can be invaluable. It allows for more gradual succession of staff.
My own father took early retirement, it was the worst thing that he did. He got fat, lazy, depressed. He took action and went back to work, not for the money, but to counter the other negative reasons. He then worked for another 15 years, but on a reducing scale (thanks to a very good employer) and I believe that has led to him still being generally very fit, healthy and mentally active even though he is very old now.
Yes, it's why I have taken partial retirement rather than full. There is still much that I want to do, I want to keep my brain working too and would miss the social contact with patients and staff. With appropriate alterations to reduce my job plan I am good for some years yet, and taking the pension maintains my income on reduced hours.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
Did you vote in favour of electoral reform in the referendum?
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
As a member of my Conservative Association's Executive Cttee I will ensure my Tory MP votes against Williamson's amendment and ideally speaks against it in the Commons too
Good morning
I rarely endorse Williamson on anything but he is absolutely correct on this
Of course you are upset but some of us do not share your views
You aren't a Tory either but a former Blair voter and Boris hater
You voted Remain like the LibDem that you truly are!
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
And a bizarre belief, among some BBC managers, that if they get rid of enough serious content, Da Kidz will return like a tidal wave.
One thing to note from the inflation fall is that this month is the rate used for uprating lots of things next April.
It covers most benefits, but is this the one used for tax thresholds, fuel and alcohol duty and the rest? Do we have an idea of the net effect of it being 1.7% rather than say 2%?
Will tax thresholds not be frozen to save every penny? Fuel duty has been frozen for a decade too.
I expect the net impact is a material saving on inflation-linked benefits and public sector pensions. But not enough to impact the big picture tax and spend dynamics.
I could see a “catch up” fuel duty increase. Because pump prices are so low right now they could get away banging 30p plus on a litre and say it’s to stop climate change. Fuel duty is a big money spinner.
I don't think they could. Fuel prices dropping back are one of the main reasons inflation has calmed down. Sticking 30p on a litre would kick off another tidal wave.
Also really regressive - rich people in their EVs* don't pay a penny extra, normals get shafted.
One possible halfway house which wouldn't alter headline pump prices would be to put VAT on fuel to zero, and make up the difference with extra fuel duty. This would make no difference to normals, but make business fuel 20% more expensive as there would be no VAT reclaims available.
*the only reason EVs are ceaper to run than ICE vehicles is the tax arbitrage - if we put the equivalent of fuel duty onto electricity for EVs, they would be more expensive to run than ICE vehicles.
That’s the same for everything to do with energy. The only way to make fossil fuels appear more expensive is to simultaneously tax it and subsidise the alternatives.
Fossil fuel prices are artificially suppressed globally because unlike just about every other industry those that extract and burn them are not required to process and dispose of their primary industrial waste product (CO2) safely, at their own cost.
Imagine how cheap other industrial products would be if their manufacturers could just dump all their toxic waste in the nearby waterways.
This just allows you to add whatever figure you want to fossil fuels to make them look uncompetitive.
But they ARE uncompetitive, even given the advantage they have of just freely releasing their waste product. "In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels." https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
There are no barriers to strongly religious people becoming MPs (or Lords) and therefore a Minister or PM (not Lords).
But do we want more? The CoE bishops guarantee an island of non-belief in the Lords.
Religious figures are also in the Life Peers.
For example, Lord Mawson is the URC Minister who achieved prominence through the St Mary Bromley-by-Bow project, which was an holistic scheme that started one day in the late 70s (?) when he opened his echoing church to be a base for community groups. They later introduced features into the scheme such as a community park, and a GP Surgery.
He then went on to found the Community Action Network UK. (CAN-UK)
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
And a bizarre belief, among some BBC managers, that if they get rid of enough serious content, Da Kidz will return like a tidal wave.
See the decision over BBC Three....which none of the kidz watch...
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
This is interesting, @TSE , what do you think is going on here?
Gavin Williamson is not even on my radar, but checking he seem to be an aspirational Machiavellian, but is a bit shit at it and keeps falling flat on his face; and an enthusiastic supporter of lost causes. He reminds me of the type that furiously denies any wrongdoing in going through a set of red lights, then suddenly pleads guilty late in the day when they discover there is video footage - for the existence of which they had not bothered to check.
Abolition of CofE Bishops in the Lords is not a known Conservative crusade. Has he supported it before? I'd go for 2 possibilities:
1 - Tories want to remove Bishops because the NatCon wing have decided the Bishops are woke insiders who will try and impose Transgenderism or similar. 2 - This is an attempt to undermine the bill removing hereditaries by putting a spoke in the wheel.
Good faith desire to sort out the Lords from the Conservatives? Naaah !
He is genuine (and by his logic he will be espousing republicanism soon.)
Williamson said: “Labour promised significant reform of the House of Lords, but they are not doing that. This is an opportunity to make the House of Lords more reflective of today’s modern world.
“It’s ridiculous that the only other major country in the world that has clergy in the legislature is Iran. Isn’t it about time to wake up to the reality that this requires reform? I don’t think it’s right that as an Anglican I have much greater representation than my children, who are Catholic.”
Williamson playing sneaky games, and another sign that the Tories are disconnecting from a group of previously core supporters. Disestablishment in this way will pull threads that will undermine the Crown as well as the House of Lords, so yet another proof of the intellectual death of Conservatism.
Even if you approve of the goal, the shallow and disrespectful means disqualify it.
Interesting though that it seemingly took a dissonance opr at least discrepancy so close to home for him to confront the basic issue - the unfair representation of one sect of one religion which isn't even applicable to the UK as a whole. No Bishops of the Churches of Wales and Ireland, or the ECS, and no Presbyterian Moderators.
Although I am also suspicious that Sir Gav is just playing games, rather than being a true believer of disestablishment.
Of course he knows he hasn’t got the votes to kick out the clerics, and I don’t even know if he really wants to. But it will make life awkward for the Labour whips, as a fair few Labour backbenchers will want to back it. There are only so many goodies for whips to give out and punishments are counterproductive.
The more times Conservative can force a division for Labour the better. We saw this every time the SNP tried to force votes on Isreal / Gaza before the election - it was about splitting the Labour leadership from the footsoldiers not stopping suffering in the ME.
This is the part I least like about politics. Treating it as a game. But I guess like life it is an inevitable aspect.
Oh, the SNP were serious about suffering - just think who its leader was, for a start, and other events.
On the [edit] current issue of bashing the bishops, though, that's an interesting interpretation.
The belief that the SNP in Westminster did nothing from principle but only as part of playing the Mother of Animal Noise Makers game is a sure sign of someone in thrall to the wonder of Westminster.
Apols if I've recounted this before but Margo McDonald told a story of on her becoming an MP being introduced to Westminster by Manny Shinwell. After his somewhat effusive tour of Westminster she asked Shinwell why he, a Red Clydesider & socialist, was so in awe of Westminster, in reply he waved his hand at the gold leaf, velvet plush and red leather seats (they had ended their tour in the HoL) and whispered 'This'.
The problem with removing the Bishops from the House of Lords is that it undermines the religious settlement of the country.
That is, preventing people who believe in anything beyond "a vague niceness and weak tea" occupying a position of power.
The cleverness of this approach is that instead of banning religion or something silly, you simply fill all the posts available with elderly and querulous agnostics.
The replacements for the Bishops might well be *religious* - Are you ready for people who believe in God having power again?
There's nothing to stop a zealous evangelical from joining the HoL, even if the direct route is stopped - they can just be appointed or elected or whatever route is chosen. I'm not sure that most people are more than vaguely aware of any religious settlement in the UK - yes, the CoE seems to have some sort of official status, but if the King decided he was a Buddhist or an agnostic, would he have to quit? I'm not sure, and I'd guess most people aren't sure, though there is no doubt an official answer.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
And a bizarre belief, among some BBC managers, that if they get rid of enough serious content, Da Kidz will return like a tidal wave.
See the decision over BBC Three....which none of the kidz watch...
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
I have long advocated that the approach to retirement is totally wrong. We have this system that is set up such that you work up to a certain age at full blast, then the next day all packed in. It obviously comes from the days when retirement was just for the lucky and you might get a couple of years before your snuffed it. It would be far better to have a system that encourages both the individual and organisations to a more gradual reduction in working hours, but working for more years.
Also in terms of productivity / business growth, having wise old heads still in the business a day or two a week, you don't instantly lose that knowledge and experience which can be invaluable. It allows for more gradual succession of staff.
My own father took early retirement, it was the worst thing that he did. He got fat, lazy, depressed. He took action and went back to work, not for the money, but to counter the other negative reasons. He then worked for another 15 years, but on a reducing scale (thanks to a very good employer) and I believe that has led to him still being generally very fit, healthy and mentally active even though he is very old now.
Yes, it's why I have taken partial retirement rather than full. There is still much that I want to do, I want to keep my brain working too and would miss the social contact with patients and staff. With appropriate alterations to reduce my job plan I am good for some years yet, and taking the pension maintains my income on reduced hours.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
There is a certain irony that if passed that bill would remove the only elected element and the only group appointed by an organisation other than the government.
Making the Lords *less* democratic.
One interesting point is that the Bishops are perhaps the best behaved group in the Lords, with the best attitude. Some of them were taking zero expenses when I last checked as they regard their presence as part of their vocation for which the church pays them a stipend, and it's only been a few years since women were authorised as Bishop, yet they are already up to 6 (from 26) Bishops in the HoL being women.
Since he emphasises he is RC, a more logical position for Williams might be to argue for broadening the role of Bishops to include senior figures from other communities, such as RC Bishops. They already usually have eg the Chief Rabbi.
Why stop there? Why not add other hobby groups? Head of the RFU? Head of the RTPI? Chief trainspotter?
Unstupidly... why not? In my Blob article I made passive reference to British corporatism. Corporatism (as distinct from rule by corporations, a different thing) is a form of government where special interest groups are included. The three most often mentioned are management, trades unions, and the people. In mediaeval times it would include the guilds. Similar proposals were mentioned (but alas not considered) as a counter to the aborted Clegg reforms...oddly enough in the Spectator, IIRC. I'll provide a link to a video about Corporatism later.
The biggest complaint by everybody at the moment is lack of representation: how politics has been taken over by an elite class that acts in its own interest. I think that is true but that then begs the question what to do about it. Adding guild representation in the Lords, and/or expanding it to include faith leadership, would be a move in a corporate direction and all the better for it.
It's not so much as an 'elite class' as an extrusion of homogenised managerial filler.
The NU10K are, sadly, quite dim on average. Consider Alison Rose - the head of a bank, who managed lose a "Tell The Truth" competition. With Nigel Fucking Farage.
Alison Rose, Paula Vennells, Cressida Dick, Dido Harding, Sharon White.
There have been some truly inept women who have reached the top of the NU10K.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Taking back control from our unelected rulers is all the rage today.
We should be taking back control from this useless Labour government elected on a mere 33% of the vote not undermining true Tory principles. If Williamson wants a civil war in the Tory Party on this I and others will make damn sure he gets one!!
Did you vote in favour of electoral reform in the referendum?
I voted for AV yes
Would you hazard a guess at the likely 2024 GE result under that system?
And "about the same, but at least with more positive votes for Labour" is a perfectly valid answer.
Feels like we’re at an inflection point with the BBC where a multiple pincer movement could take it down rapidly.
It’s a national asset and probably the UK’s most powerful brand (I appreciate those features are unlikely to appeal to you). As important as Trident (ditto) and our top universities.
I agree completely. Why the fuck would you get rid of that? When you look at some of the infantile pap the BBC churns out?
How much does it cost to produce a good in depth news interview programme? Sack one Gary Lineker and you’ve probably got enough to fund it for for a decade
And why aren't they forced to focus on the stuff others wont/can't do? Hardtalk being a top example. Why are they allowed to slash news output and journalists and stuff like Newsnight but spend millions on Strictly, and "the talent" and property buying porn?
It’s the same problem that blights the Met Office. Both organisations are world beating in the talent and quality of their infrastructure, but both are kept alive on an intermittent fasting diet of not enough public money but a set of constraints that mean they can’t operate truly commercially either.
Contrast with NOAA in the US. Funded so generously by the US military that they can give out their data for free. Result: despite having statistically much poorer weather models than either the Met Office or ECMWF, their output is everywhere.
Or the French national champions since forever: protected by regulation at home, aggressively commercial abroad.
Until fairly recently NOAA were funded pretty badly, and the Met Office are generally quite happy with their hybrid approach. Having most of their government funding in the form of commercial-style contracts enables them to negotiate to protect their funding from departmental cuts, because they can point to the loss of services that will follow from a cut in funding.
This is one of the reasons why the Met Office have historically been quite successful in arguing for the government investment that has made them better than NOAA, and competing for commercial contracts with private weather firms has also imposed the discipline of achieving results to keep those contracts.
NOAA is not a successful model for the Met Office to follow.
There's are some problems with the current Met Office setup, and some tweaks you could make, but it has been reviewed numerous times and the conclusion has always been that the current model is better than the alternatives.
The BBC is a different matter. They need to escape the licence fee, but it's a huge amount of income to replace. Not easy.
Fund it out of general taxation. That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
If you fund it out of general taxation it will end up being salami-sliced away to nothing. Why spend tax revenue on the BBC when you could fund nurses instead?
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
It is being salami sliced to death. Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
And a bizarre belief, among some BBC managers, that if they get rid of enough serious content, Da Kidz will return like a tidal wave.
See the decision over BBC Three....which none of the kidz watch...
Still on Freeview channel 23!
That's my point. None of da kidz watched it in original form, none of the da kidz watch it now. The argument is it allowed for BBC to commission programmes that wouldn't do otherwise and more youth focused, but you don't need a separate channel for that (and most of it is trash). They could just as easily commission some more "risky" things and put them on iPlayer, these days people find stuff that is good wherever it might be (especially da yufth).
Never mind getting rid of the BIshops. Get rid of the Lords,knighthoods and all the other POLITICAL crony based awards. William was knighted but lord knows what for and certainly not deserved.
House of Lords reform is the perennial boreathon of British politics.
I can't see any improvement of government or governance that would result from it.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
It would probably be quicker to get the train from Lichfield or Rugeley to Euston without having to change, if you can get to one of those two stations.
The Tuchel hand wringing continues apace with the likes of Rory Smith on 5 live this morning declaring his appointment as "it's virtually cheating" Meanwhile England's cricketers attempt a series win in Pakistan guided by their New Zealand coach and South African/New Zealand born players..🧐🤔
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Thank you, it’s working 😆
To be fair, there are other compensations. I’m on a clean, modern electric train with ample legroom that’s comfortably full but not crowded and the scenery has been OK until five minutes ago when we got to Walsall.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
So you’ve never visited New Street station before?
Because that is the bleakest station in the country.
Funnily enough, just got there. But I have to disagree. Euston is worse…
There’s a good book to be written (who knows, maybe it already has been) about countries that were once rich and which have become poorer, either slowly and inexorably or very rapidly. Not about rise and fall of geopolitical power, that’s different, but relative impoverishment.
There are some interesting case studies out there alongside Japan. Argentina in the 20th century. Mexico. Portugal and China in the 16th C to late 20th. Italy from the Medicis to now. Egypt.
Who’s next? Australia’s an interesting one. No signs right now, but it’s extremely dependent on a few commodities including coal.
It feels that way here.
Lots of people work very hard for modest and heavily taxed salaries, where they can't afford much.
I feel it at my level and I'm quite well paid.
Most of that is because of ruinously expensive housing and most of the rest is because we pretend to old people that they can live forever in comfort without working largely at public expense.
This is an interesting graph of who pays in to the state coffers and who takes out:
Currently 13.6% of our population is over 70 (about 9 500 000) projected to be about 20% in 2040. The current number of over 85's will double to 4% of the population too.
Keeping older workers in the workforce is key to the nations finances, as is maintaining the working age population.
I have long advocated that the approach to retirement is totally wrong. We have this system that is set up such that you work up to a certain age at full blast, then the next day all packed in. It obviously comes from the days when retirement was just for the lucky and you might get a couple of years before your snuffed it. It would be far better to have a system that encourages both the individual and organisations to a more gradual reduction in working hours, but working for more years.
Also in terms of productivity / business growth, having wise old heads still in the business a day or two a week, you don't instantly lose that knowledge and experience which can be invaluable. It allows for more gradual succession of staff.
My own father took early retirement, it was the worst thing that he did. He got fat, lazy, depressed. He took action and went back to work, not for the money, but to counter the other negative reasons. He then worked for another 15 years, but on a reducing scale (thanks to a very good employer) and I believe that has led to him still being generally very fit, healthy and mentally active even though he is very old now.
Post full time working, consultancy is a good idea for many desk roles. As you say - a gradual tapering off vs a sudden stop.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
Cheer yourself up by imagining how much better off you are than if it was a replacement bus service.
Thank you, it’s working 😆
To be fair, there are other compensations. I’m on a clean, modern electric train with ample legroom that’s comfortably full but not crowded and the scenery has been OK until five minutes ago when we got to Walsall.
This week’s edition of the world isn’t as shit as I thought it was. In a small way.
I bought a coffee a Costa in Kings Cross. I’ve not bought coffee from Costa for years, because it’s crap. It wasn’t crap. It was actually quite decent.
Then I got on the train and found an unreserved seat at a table. Bloody hell.
Only downside having to walk past all the half empty first class coaches wondering what business these days pays for its people to travel first class? Bastards.
My business pays for first class travel so I have a table to work from and a power socket to plug in my laptop.
A lot of LNER first class travel is leisure though - there is often very little in the price if you can catch a specific train.
My parents buy those, but you have to commit to a specific off-peak train weeks ahead to get the best price.
Easy enough if you’re retired and heading for an event you bought tickets for months ago, somewhat less so if travelling for work where schedules frequently change.
I’m travelling by train from Cannock to Euston with one change at New Street, bought last night for £32.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
So you’ve never visited New Street station before?
Because that is the bleakest station in the country.
Funnily enough, just got there. But I have to disagree. Euston is worse…
New Street is much improved at concourse level ("Grand Central" name notwithstanding!).
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
Lol, that post is hilarious. The Conservative Party, like any other does not need to be completely rooted in the past. The only fundamental is resisting change for the sake of change. If you take your argument to its logical conclusion the Conservatives should never have voted for any constitutional change at all. You also don't seem to know your own party's history. It is a liberal party at its core and has regularly reinvented itself. I would say that TSE seems much more of a Conservative than you are. You have turned into a Johnson worshiping parody of a Tory, with views that seem more aligned to MAGA than Conservatism.
TSE is a Liberal Whig NOT a Tory.
The fact the Tory party had some free market liberals join it to create today's Conservative party does not change that
The Tuchel hand wringing continues apace with the likes of Rory Smith on 5 live this morning declaring his appointment as "it's virtually cheating" Meanwhile England's cricketers attempt a series win in Pakistan guided by their New Zealand coach and South African/New Zealand born players..🧐🤔
Why is it cheating? England have had multiple foreign managers before, other countries have foreign managers, and across lots of sports England have leveraged foreign coaches from rowing to rugby.
I take back all the rude things I have ever said about Sir Gavin WIlliamson.
Tory MPs want Corbyn’s support to oust bishops from House of Lords
Sir Gavin Williamson is trying to amend Labour’s reform bill to remove the right of the Archbishop of Canterbury and his colleagues to sit in the upper house
Conservative MPs will seek to make common cause with Jeremy Corbyn to oust bishops from the House of Lords as part of Labour’s reform drive.
Labour MPs face being embarrassed as they are forced to vote in favour of keeping Anglican bishops in the Lords as they back plans to oust hereditary peers.
The bill, which passed its second reading on Tuesday evening, will remove the 92 remaining hereditary peers from the Lords in what ministers have described as the biggest constitutional overhaul in a quarter of a century.
However, Sir Gavin Williamson, the Tory former chief whip, is putting forward an amendment that would remove bishops from the House of Lords, arguing that Labour’s modernisation does not go far enough.
After ministers said it was “indefensible” for hereditary peers to sit in the upper house, Williamson has argued that the exclusive right of 26 Anglican clerics to sit in the chamber is equally outdated. Ministers have said they will consider reducing the number of bishops at a later date, but that kicking out hereditary peers has to come first.
Gavin Williamson is an utter disgrace and I will tell him so on twitter this morning.
Tories are supposed to stand up for Crown, our peers and landed interest and our Anglican Bishops and established church.
I can just about see such a move from a Liberal like you but from an elected Tory MP like Williamson it is completely unacceptable. He should be fighting to keep hereditary peers AND Church of England Bishops in the Lords
But why, HYUFD? You take this as axiomatic - but there has to be a reason why standing up for these things is a good: why some people (besides the bishops themselves) will be better off as a result. For most people it's "I believe X, Y and Z are good things for reasons, A, B and C - therefore I will support party P". For you it appears to be "I support party P - therefore I believe X, Y and Z are good things - and the reasons are almost irrelevant."
Because it is a TRUE TORY principle for God's sake!!!!!!
Anyone who is not willing to stand up for our King, our hereditary peers and landed estates and C of E Bishops is NOT a TRUE TORY and does NOT deserve to be representing Tory colours.
How on earth Williamson has the gall to call himself a Knight of the Realm after this oikish moronic behaviour is beyond me.
I have a good mind to write to Baroness May and ask her to request the King strip him of his knighthood she got for him
That's the wrong way around. I don't think anyone in the world thinks like this: I am a Tory, therefore these are my principles. (Or in this very peculiar case, I am a Tory, these were Tory principles 200 years ago, therefore these are my principles.) For literally everyone else, it goes: I believe x, y and z to be good (for reasons a, b and c), therefore I am party label P. Or no party at all. In this case, HYUFD believes in the crown, the hereditary peers and the bishops for reasons a, b and c and is therefore a Tory. What I'm interested in is what reasons a, b and c are. And don't say "because they're Tory principles" because that's circular logic.
The standard conservative argument is that it has worked for centuries, so why mess with it?
Obviously that argument doesn't wash for a utopian radical like myself, but it's a pretty simple argument to make and understand. I don't know why people are giving HYUFD such a hard time over it.
Well yes, and that would be a reason, but he isn't making that argument. He's saying he supports bishops cos he's a Tory. Which isn't an explanation, in my book.
Comments
The only scenarios where it's meaningful to say that a market is "wrong" are: (a) when you have a better informed subjective probability estimate than the crowd setting the market; or (b) where there is another resource that systematically outperforms the markets (by enough to overcome the bookies' cut/commission). (b) is the more interesting possibility, and I think it's plausible, although if so I'm surprised that nobody here has written an article about it.
And frankly you are sounding hysterical
The myth the danger of mobile phones and petrol pumps was thoroughly investigated when I worked at Shell, many years ago. No danger.
The legal comment was that, because of the ambulance chaser type lawyers, the previous advice should be left in place. Because the first thing that would happen after a fire at a petrol station, would be the lawyers claiming that The Big Oil company was responsible, due to bad advice. Cue decades of expensive litigation and repetitional damage.
If it will cheer @Northern_Al up I’m willing to throw in a prediction of Pakistan to win by an innings…
Notice the BMJ slowly waking up to the fact it has some serious headbangers in areas of authority discrediting the organisation.
That’s not too bad.
Even if it’s hard to imagine a bleaker place than Cannock Station at 9.30 on a wet Wednesday in October.
We're regularly treated to graphs showing the UK spending less as a proportion of GDP than comparable countries.
Yet there must be areas where the UK spends more - why are people not so eager to show them.
BIshops. Get rid of the Lords,knighthoods and all the other POLITICAL crony based awards. William was knighted but lord knows what for and certainly not deserved.
With (business) flights, on the other hand, First is absolutely worth it for actual long haul (i.e. anything West Coast US and longer.) It's not so much the in-flight benefits (though they are good); it's being able to rock up in a comfy car at the special entrance and have members of staff deal with your passport/check-in etc while you get yourself sorted in the Concorde lounge. If you've got meetings at the other end, a spruce up in arrivals is a godsend. You feel quite human at the end of it. I don't fly any more if I can possibly help it, but we always pay for 1st now if we have to.
ETA: Domestic trains are ludicrous now. Even advance tickets are prohibitively expensive to take my family from e.g. CBG to LIV 1st. Even a CBG to OXF ticket is a stupid price.
In this case, HYUFD believes in the crown, the hereditary peers and the bishops for reasons a, b and c and is therefore a Tory. What I'm interested in is what reasons a, b and c are. And don't say "because they're Tory principles" because that's circular logic.
I suppose it’s what the BBC could be if it concentrated on a small but successful and high quality output behind a premium subscription paywall.
That would save 4% of its budget straight away.
Of course he knows he hasn’t got the votes to kick out the clerics, and I don’t even know if he really wants to. But it will make life awkward for the Labour whips, as a fair few Labour backbenchers will want to back it. There are only so many goodies for whips to give out and punishments are counterproductive.
The more times Conservative can force a division for Labour the better. We saw this every time the SNP tried to force votes on Isreal / Gaza before the election - it was about splitting the Labour leadership from the footsoldiers not stopping suffering in the ME.
This is the part I least like about politics. Treating it as a game. But I guess like life it is an inevitable aspect.
On the [edit] current issue of bashing the bishops, though, that's an interesting interpretation.
Take the Bishop of Newcastle. She is based in Newcastle and represents a regional view, unlike some Life Peers who seem to migrate to London often once appointed (based on a data review), and is responsible for overseeing key community leaders in every place in Newcastle Diocese - from Jesmond to the remotest village and the most deprived UPA. And she has routine contacts with a full range of people just through the networks she moves in, including a full range of community projects / organisations.
She receives a stipend of £46k per annum (plus pension, accommodation with the job TBF), compared to a basic MP who get twice as much (£91k?), plus a package, plus often an office supplement or a second job. And some of them, in about the top 5%, STILL spend their lives complaining about how poor they are. Bishops are closer to reality.
I wonder what would happen if the Lords did go 'elected', and the Church of England appointed one or two Bishops per region with an apostolate (= area of life of interest or focus) to Governance / Politics, who stood in the election? The dogmatic secularist lobby (not meaning you - more groups like the NSS), who exclusively get their traction through networks of public figures not elections, would do their nut - but they do that anyway even now.
The principled 'religious professional' objection remains, but I'm not sure it's as strong in reality as some would have us believe.
I’m guessing you’re not particularly bothered about climate change. On which logic of course we might as well drill drill drill.
There are innumerable SMEs - similar to the Mittelstand in Germany- many with intellectual property, producing medium and high tech in various fields.
In
And much of it is deprived.
Go to Wetherby or Harewood and you get a very different impression than from Harehills or Seacroft.
There are similar variations in many, possibly most, areas in this country.
Labour is in denial about knife crime - It is ignoring the causes of urban warfare
https://unherd.com/2024/10/labour-is-in-denial-about-knife-crime/
Not even India has unelected Hindu and Sikh priests in its parliament!
He's the Nevada pollster whose infallibility Sir John Curtice would aspire to emulate, were he a Nevada pollster. For the first time in forever, he's unsure of how to call this one.
To be fair, there are other compensations. I’m on a clean, modern electric train with ample legroom that’s comfortably full but not crowded and the scenery has been OK until five minutes ago when we got to Walsall.
But - I then have to get on an Avanti train…
https://historicengland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1338212
Everyday reality it isn't.
The NU10K are, sadly, quite dim on average. Consider Alison Rose - the head of a bank, who managed lose a "Tell The Truth" competition. With Nigel Fucking Farage.
Also in terms of productivity / business growth, having wise old heads still in the business a day or two a week, you don't instantly lose that knowledge and experience which can be invaluable. It allows for more gradual succession of staff.
My own father took early retirement, it was the worst thing that he did. He got fat, lazy, depressed. He took action and went back to work, not for the money, but to counter the other negative reasons. He then worked for another 15 years, but on a reducing scale (thanks to a very good employer) and I believe that has led to him still being generally very fit, healthy and mentally active even though he is very old now.
Obviously that argument doesn't wash for a utopian radical like myself, but it's a pretty simple argument to make and understand. I don't know why people are giving HYUFD such a hard time over it.
It's the only alternative that is worse than the status quo.
"(FWIW I only get it on flights over 6 hours)"
(AFAICS the main thing about flying First is that you are possibly going to get people like Lord Mandelson telling everyone anyone who will listen how important they are, and that they therefore have a right to get X Y or Z first.)
Aided by the unpopularity of the license fee.
Because that is the bleakest station in the country.
I love the BBC, and much of its output. But I'm watching it less and less. There's just too many competitors, often doing the job better than the Beeb. (At other times, not doing a better job...)
Drew Harwell
@drewharwell.com
Here's the full, chilling quote from Trump's former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman, the retired Gen. Mark Milley, in Bob Woodward's new "War."
"You have got to stop him! ... He is the most dangerous person to this country. ... A fascist to the core!"
https://bsky.app/profile/drewharwell.com/post/3l6klmusiab2z
Are in fact the true freeloaders here the property owning rentier classes sponging off the state at one remove via housing benefit payments that ultimately end up in their own pockets? I think you can make quite a strong case for that.
Blaming the poorer segments of society for the fact that rents are through the roof seems both unfair & also a misdirection - it’s easy to blame the “feckless poor”, less easy politically to point the finger at those who profit from them.
Another issue with the likes of Hard Talk, is the Internet has taken long form interviews / podcasts and made it into a hugely popular niche. Much more than Hard Talk on at 3am on BBC News channel with nobody watching. I doubt many people below a certain age even know of the programme, but they will know of loads of podcasts that have long form conversations.
"In most places in the world power from new renewables is now cheaper than power from new fossil fuels."
https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth
For example, Lord Mawson is the URC Minister who achieved prominence through the St Mary Bromley-by-Bow project, which was an holistic scheme that started one day in the late 70s (?) when he opened his echoing church to be a base for community groups. They later introduced features into the scheme such as a community park, and a GP Surgery.
He then went on to found the Community Action Network UK. (CAN-UK)
Apols if I've recounted this before but Margo McDonald told a story of on her becoming an MP being introduced to Westminster by Manny Shinwell. After his somewhat effusive tour of Westminster she asked Shinwell why he, a Red Clydesider & socialist, was so in awe of Westminster, in reply he waved his hand at the gold leaf, velvet plush and red leather seats (they had ended their tour in the HoL) and whispered 'This'.
It sounds good
There have been some truly inept women who have reached the top of the NU10K.
And that's before we mention the politicians.
But the blokes are no better either.
And "about the same, but at least with more positive votes for Labour" is a perfectly valid answer.
38 candidates for the Oxford Chancellorship:
https://www.ox.ac.uk/about/organisation/university-officers/chancellor/chancellor-election/candidate-statements
The list includes "Lord William" Hague and "Lord Peter" Mandelson, though neither is, to the best of my knowledge, the younger son of a duke.
I can't see any improvement of government or governance that would result from it.
Meanwhile England's cricketers attempt a series win in Pakistan guided by their New Zealand coach and South African/New Zealand born players..🧐🤔
The fact the Tory party had some free market liberals join it to create today's Conservative party does not change that