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.
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.
Morning All! Agree. I worked full time until I was 65, then took on various part-time pharmaceutical roles until I was just past 70, by which time the costs and time involved in maintaining my registration were in danger of becoming prohibitive. So I stopped and did some voluntary work until Covid came along. After which the infirmities of old age rather caught up with me, but I still do a little for a couple of local charities, and I run a Group for the local u3a.
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.
Which begs an obvious question, does it not?
Hell, try Hard Talk on one of those subscription platforms?
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.
NB I actually agree with the point that everyone should probably be paying (some) tax. But right now, if you try and tax the people breaking even on a combination of a 20 hours minimum wage 0 hours contract, with income support & housing benefit keeping them afloat you’re just going to end up taxing with one hand and paying out in more benefits with the other it seems to me.
As a nation we’ve backed ourselves into something of a pickle.
(Also: a question to which I don’t know the actual answer: compared to say, a decade or 2 decades earlier did the LibDem shifting of the tax-free band actually represent a real-terms increase? Or was it just undoing a decade or so of prior fiscal drag?)
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.
It is, much quicker. 1 hour 45 against 2 hours 40.
However, Cannock is within walking distance of my house and Rugeley is £20 for the taxi and then double the price of the ticket.
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.
Which begs an obvious question, does it not?
Hell, try Hard Talk on one of those subscription platforms?
The BBC Hard Talk YouTube channel hasn't uploaded for 4 years....nobody watches YouTube obvs....and it did super piss poor numbers. In the meantime, a bloke off Love Island from his bedroom during COVID (because he was out of a job) has grown a long form interview channel to have millions of viewers and gets to interview all the big names.
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.
NB I actually agree with the point that everyone should probably be paying (some) tax. But right now, if you try and tax the people breaking even on a combination of a 20 hours minimum wage 0 hours contract, with income support & housing benefit keeping them afloat you’re just going to end up taxing with one hand and paying out in more benefits with the other it seems to me.
As a nation we’ve backed ourselves into something of a pickle.
(Also: a question to which I don’t know the actual answer: compared to say, a decade or 2 decades earlier did the LibDem shifting of the tax-free band actually represent a real-terms increase? Or was it just undoing a decade or so of prior fiscal drag?)
Get rid of the huge cliffs that people in those circumstances have to climb to end up financially better off. If you withdraw benefits at a rate that means an extra hour of work makes you 50p better off.... well, strangely, people don't want that extra hour.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
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.
House of Unelected Has-Beens!
A House of Elected Un-Beens wouldn't be any better, and might in fact be worse.
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
I bet you would have opposed women getting the vote.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
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.
It is, much quicker. 1 hour 45 against 2 hours 40.
However, Cannock is within walking distance of my house and Rugeley is £20 for the taxi and then double the price of the ticket.
Many years ago I had the pleasure of working in Bridgtown. I am guessing it has changed considerably in the intervening 34 years. The factory has long sinced closed and had three names while I was there.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
It's like downgrading Newsnight to a round table discussion of talking heads. Soon real journalism will only be in the history books, but we will be drowning in commentary.
Which named person in the BBC is making these decisions?
I doubt it is and similarly I doubt the story I am about to tell is either but it made us move pretty sharpish:
Last year, in a America, we filled up with petrol and were about to leave when the car next to us left with the nozzle still in the car when they drove off. The driver ripped the hose clean out of the petrol pump. I shouted at my wife to go go go, which she did and then promptly parked about 20 metres away at which point I shouted to her to move properly a long way away from where we were. She did.
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
Utter nonsense
I was an active conservative member long before you were born, only voted Blair because he was right at the time, and I am not a Johnson hater but his behaviour eventually caught up with him and he paid the price
On Bishops I was confirmed into the COE by the Bishop of Durham in 1957 and was a server for several years and knew the communion service inside out
That does not prevent me from supporting the ending of the bishops in the HOL but then I would end the whole concept of the HOL
It's like downgrading Newsnight to a round table discussion of talking heads. Soon real journalism will only be in the history books, but we will be drowning in commentary.
Which named person in the BBC is making these decisions?
They need to be subjected to a HARDTALK special.
The BBC do this every time, its never about really making the hard decision, its all about signally its not fair, we have had to cut your favourite show (for a small target demographic that have some influence over the narrative).
FT reporting that Reeves now saying Black Hole is £40billion
How much of that is her own doing? Economy slowing, wage growth slowing, unprecedented rise in the public sector salary bill.
She's absolutely useless, another irredeemable part of this government. I really hope those idiot Tories who stayed home on election day are happy with this. We could have had 200+ seats and forced Labour into minority government if the 1m deserters turned out.
Your first part is true, but in terms of events this absolutely needed to happen. They needed to come into Government. They're going to destroy the left for a generation.
But what's left after this government gets booted out. No UNSC veto, overseas territories given up, oil and gas development dead, record levels of tax, public sector client state bigger than ever.
The fact that our only hope is Macron and an IMF bailout to force the government to cut spending is quite awful.
IMF!? What are you smoking Max?
Tax rises will be used to address the terrible financial situation the Tories have left behind, not IMF bail-outs.
The problem is that one can always raise tax rates. It's quite a lot more difficult to achieve sustained increases to the tax take. And it's virtually impossible to do either of these without destroying any hint of growth in the economy.
The only possibile fix that doesn't involve the IMF is to get something for nothing, and cut business costs by deregulation. But regulation has been on a one way ratchet since the end of WW2, and the idiots in the Labour Party are the last people on earth willing to reverse this even though it is the underlying cause of most of the malaise.
You don't seem to understand what the IMF is or what it does.
It is there to help (mostly developing) countries on fixed exchange rates, which we don't have, out of temporary liquidity difficulties, which we can't have because of the government's ability to borrow in sterling and if necessary turn on the printing presses (AKA quantitative easing). It is not there to save a cowardly electorate and lazy and spineless politicians from the long-term consequences of their own folly.
An IMF loan would do nothing to help us, out of our long-term economic difficulties, which are caused by poor supply side policies, and indeed would, with their focus on macro-economic rather than micro-economic measures, probably prevent them from being addressed.
In any case, the IMF's resources are already under such strain that it can hardly keep up its current programme to much poorer and more deserving countries, let alone take on a gigantic new liability. Even if they did, pumping a loan large enough to make a difference into an economy like ours would certainly be inflationary, and would likely lead to a wage-price spiral of the type we've just escaped from.
Finally, of course, any IMF programme would have no democratic legitimacy, and even if successful (and they have a poor track record) the government would simply renege on it as soon as it safely could, as Labour did in the late 1970s.
In times of difficulty it is always attractive to look for a shortcut, but I'm afraid there is none - in a democracy, politicians with the intelligence to see the policies required and the public spirit necessary to persevere in the face of short-term unpopularity need to win free elections. They aren't in any way abstract or complicated - low taxes, light but effective regulation, cheap energy, enough housing and decent infrastructure - and our failure is of political will, not economic competence.
I don't disagree with any of that.
My point about the IMF is more about a shorthand for what happens when the socialists run out of other peoples money. I'm aware that it's not quite like last time round as we run a floating reserve currency.
What worries me is that the end of this road is looking quite close. We're running more or less a primary surplus, but the government is massively underwater because of lunatic levels of historic borrowing, which is now starting to compound on itself. There is literally no more tax money to squeeze out of the economy, and the government can't cut spending because they are too frightened of the squealing from special interest groups.
This either ends in a default which will probably collapse the banking sector, or the printing presses go on until we get hyperinflation. Neither seems appealing (although if we're wise we'll take the default).
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.
Morning All! Agree. I worked full time until I was 65, then took on various part-time pharmaceutical roles until I was just past 70, by which time the costs and time involved in maintaining my registration were in danger of becoming prohibitive. So I stopped and did some voluntary work until Covid came along. After which the infirmities of old age rather caught up with me, but I still do a little for a couple of local charities, and I run a Group for the local u3a.
Its a very good idea, having a more gradual pension system could also be the answer to things like the WFA. Start it at 75-80ish instead of 66 and it would be a lot less divisive.
Feels better than the current setup to me, someone in their early sixties working 3/4 days a week would be fine as would someone 68-74 working 1 or 2 days a week.
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
I bet you would have opposed women getting the vote.
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.
Morning All! Agree. I worked full time until I was 65, then took on various part-time pharmaceutical roles until I was just past 70, by which time the costs and time involved in maintaining my registration were in danger of becoming prohibitive. So I stopped and did some voluntary work until Covid came along. After which the infirmities of old age rather caught up with me, but I still do a little for a couple of local charities, and I run a Group for the local u3a.
Its a very good idea, having a more gradual pension system could also be the answer to things like the WFA. Start it at 75-80ish instead of 66 and it would be a lot less divisive.
Feels better than the current setup to me, someone in their early sixties working 3/4 days a week would be fine as would someone 68-74 working 1 or 2 days a week.
There are certain jobs that are more tricky in the individual hasn't had much career progression and still more "on the shop floor". However, I think this is where the government could put the thumb on the scale a bit and make it attractive to companies to take on older workers, so if people can't continue in one industry there are other doors open.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
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.
In practice I'd suggest there is enough fudge in the system to cover it. Any crisis might come from the Monarchy side, instead, or if the CofE declines Cheshire Car style, and the Lords Spiritual turn out to be the smile.
The CofE is broad enough that it has atheists amongst its Ministers, so I don't think that it would be impossible to cope with a Buddhist monarch. There people who will say so of course, for political reasons. But twas ever thus !
I think there already are probably quite a number of zealous evangelicals in the HoL, though they will be British style rather than Usonian style. And will perhaps be zealous around particular questions rather than "religion".
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.
It is, much quicker. 1 hour 45 against 2 hours 40.
However, Cannock is within walking distance of my house and Rugeley is £20 for the taxi and then double the price of the ticket.
Many years ago I had the pleasure of working in Bridgtown. I am guessing it has changed considerably in the intervening 34 years. The factory has long sinced closed and had three names while I was there.
There is still quite a lot you would recognise. The High Street looks much as it would have done and the old A5 roads. But several former factories including I would guess yours are now industrial estates.
The bus depot is also about to be closed and sold for housing.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
He also claims to be the chief. So its up to him to change it.
0% inflation would be nice for consumers. Not so good for producers and businesses.
Is not good for anybody to have 0% inflation. You need a small amount of inflation to encourage people to purchase goods and service today rather than in the future / never, and keep the wheels of capitalism turning.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
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.
Local bishop round my way is an career idiot determined to ride rough shod over everybody they disagree with, and sufficiently ignorant of the law, the diocese has no money after (deservedly) losing an very expensive employment discrimination case. Her only possible value is to seek her advice on an issue, as then you'll know to do the exact opposite. Thinking about it, she's probably very at home in the Lords, I'm surprised the government hasn't tried to make her foreign secretary yet...
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.
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 ☹️
The retired senior civil servants would be “Lords Administrative”.
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.
Local bishop round my way is an career idiot determined to ride rough shod over everybody they disagree with, and sufficiently ignorant of the law, the diocese has no money after (deservedly) losing an very expensive employment discrimination case. Her only possible value is to seek her advice on an issue, as then you'll know to do the exact opposite. Thinking about it, she's probably very at home in the Lords, I'm surprised the government hasn't tried to make her foreign secretary yet...
You live in London? Or is there more than one?
(Remember with Sarah Mullally it could have been worse. Welby wanted Paula Vennells…)
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
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
Utter nonsense
I was an active conservative member long before you were born, only voted Blair because he was right at the time, and I am not a Johnson hater but his behaviour eventually caught up with him and he paid the price
On Bishops I was confirmed into the COE by the Bishop of Durham in 1957 and was a server for several years and knew the communion service inside out
That does not prevent me from supporting the ending of the bishops in the HOL but then I would end the whole concept of the HOL
On inflation, the pound rose a not insubstantial $0.03 in September but it's already back down again. Feels more like the economy stagnating although if it leads to interest rate cuts that's apparently good news.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
That must make your house worth more than a similar property 200m down the road.
Would be nice to think so given I’m trying to sell it. Unfortunately, the opposite is true as a Penkridge or Codsall postcode is more valuable than a Cannock one.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
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
Hilariously untrue. And it’s not even remotely close.
It also depends what you mean by Conservative; I would not call the current incarnation of the Conservative Party, "Conservative".
The last Bishop known to me I would know to call Conservative was probably Rt Rev Bill Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough 1984-1995. He was described as Thatcherite at the time iirc. But there may be approx 200 Bishops appointed since 1990, so it is a big field.
It would very much depend on what the policy was - I'm sure you can find many policies even under the 2019-2024 Government that some would support. There's always a lot that is non-partisan.
I think Mrs Thatcher upended the "suggest two and the PM will appoint the first in the list" system that used to exist when she appointed George Carey as ABC, who was second on the list. He was a bit reactionary in his later years - but again on particular questions mainly around some areas of social conservatism, rather than purely on tribal loyalty.
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
As a friend of Dom Cummings, is he the Dark Knight aka the Batshitcrazy Man?
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
I bet you would have opposed women getting the vote.
He'd have split himself in two over repealing the Corn Laws...
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Ah yes, sorry. I was derailed by that stupendous 'rom com' barnet.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
Bit disappointed what NYT have done to Tifo football YouTube channel, they rebranded it into Athletic one (which is fine), but lost all the really interesting nicely animated stories about football and the tactical breakdowns, both of which you don't see elsewhere and which is what made Tifo Football so popular.
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Virender Sehwag waves his hand.
Never heard of him ;-) ....even then, Duckett literally never leaves any delivery.
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Labour has appointed more than 200 “cronies” to the Civil Service without competition since the general election, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Government has made the equivalent of two exceptional hires for every day of Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership so far, prompting claims he has used his first few months in charge to stack Whitehall with allies.
The appointments have been made using a rule that allows ministers to circumnavigate the usual Civil Service recruitment process. This should generally only be done for short-term placements, where “highly specialist skills” are required, or when re-hiring former civil servants previously appointed on merit.
Analysis of the data by The Telegraph reveals that there have been at least 228 exceptional hires since July. The true number is likely to be higher, as figures were only available for nine departments.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Grant is probably overdue a knighthood. Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
Bit disappointed what NYT have done to Tifo football YouTube channel, they rebranded it into Athletic one (which is fine), but lost all the really interesting nicely animated stories about football and the tactical breakdowns, both of which you don't see elsewhere and which is what made Tifo Football so popular.
I know, it is disappointing, some of the analysis you see on TV is like from the 1990s.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Grant is probably overdue a knighthood. Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
Because I quite like crotchety Hugh I’d hope he’d knock it back. As in previous cases I’ll probably be disappointed though.
0% inflation would be nice for consumers. Not so good for producers and businesses.
It feels like prices have gone up 50% in the last 2 years, not the compounded official amount.
Worth noting that the drop in oil price is masking increase in inflation in things like food (which is obviously things people both rely on every day, but also experience most regularly).
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Virender Sehwag waves his hand.
Never heard of him ;-) ....even then, Duckett literally never leaves any delivery.
Victor Trumper and Gilbert Jessop were playing like this a century and more ago!
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Virender Sehwag waves his hand.
Never heard of him ;-) ....even then, Duckett literally never leaves any delivery.
Victor Trumper and Gilbert Jessop were playing like this a century and more ago!
Yes but the game has change beyond all recognition since then. For one, every single delivery you ever face is recorded and analysed. Your weaknesses are observed and exposed very quickly. So far, the fact Duckett never leaves a delivery it doesn't seem that opponents have found a way of exploiting this overly aggressive style.
Labour has appointed more than 200 “cronies” to the Civil Service without competition since the general election, The Telegraph can reveal.
The Government has made the equivalent of two exceptional hires for every day of Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership so far, prompting claims he has used his first few months in charge to stack Whitehall with allies.
The appointments have been made using a rule that allows ministers to circumnavigate the usual Civil Service recruitment process. This should generally only be done for short-term placements, where “highly specialist skills” are required, or when re-hiring former civil servants previously appointed on merit.
Analysis of the data by The Telegraph reveals that there have been at least 228 exceptional hires since July. The true number is likely to be higher, as figures were only available for nine departments.
Given the Telegraph have spent years complaining about the civil service apparently blocking the wishes of the elected govt, presumably this is presented as a good news story?
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...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
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.
It is, much quicker. 1 hour 45 against 2 hours 40.
However, Cannock is within walking distance of my house and Rugeley is £20 for the taxi and then double the price of the ticket.
Many years ago I had the pleasure of working in Bridgtown. I am guessing it has changed considerably in the intervening 34 years. The factory has long sinced closed and had three names while I was there.
There is still quite a lot you would recognise. The High Street looks much as it would have done and the old A5 roads. But several former factories including I would guess yours are now industrial estates.
The bus depot is also about to be closed and sold for housing.
The factory I used to work at has long since closed, you are right. At least my pension from it is safe though. I left in August 1990 so long time ago.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
I'm needlessly thrilled by points where three constituencies meet. I used to live 50 yards from the boundaries of Sheffields Central, Hallam and Hillsborough. Brought me joy every time I crossed the road.
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...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Another 50 for Duckett....he is totally rewriting how test opener should play i.e. take your time, leave plenty of balls early, don't take unnecessary risks. The big question is can he do that in Australia against their stellar pace attack.
Virender Sehwag waves his hand.
Never heard of him ;-) ....even then, Duckett literally never leaves any delivery.
Victor Trumper and Gilbert Jessop were playing like this a century and more ago!
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
I used to watch Littleborough in the South Lancashire league. Their list of professionals who played for them included Sir Garfield Sobers, Joel Garner, Sir Andy Roberts...
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...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
It is why YouTube is so popular, it has something for everybody. But in particular the niche of long form interviews and high quality science / history factual content is extremely popular in a way I don't think outside the odd exception has ever been the case on linear tv in recent history.
Many of the biggest YouTubers, like Tom Scott, would probably have been TV presenters on BBC programmes like Tomorrow's World if they'd been around a couple of decades earlier.
Gavin Williamson's seat includes areas that are very close to Cannock. Useless fact.
Gavin Williamson’s seat starts 200m from my front door.
Even more useless fact.
I'm needlessly thrilled by points where three constituencies meet. I used to live 50 yards from the boundaries of Sheffields Central, Hallam and Hillsborough. Brought me joy every time I crossed the road.
A council boundary used to run across our back garden.
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Grant is probably overdue a knighthood. Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
His naughtiness with hookers probably a black mark against him.
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...)
What I want is 20-60 min spoken documentaries in lecture format. I hate the podcast format and interview format. Here is an example
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..🧐🤔
Are we supposed to know who Rory Smith is? Let alone assign his views particular import?
Football journalist, one of the best.
He calls himself a soccer correspondent. Need I say more....
He works for the New York Times, he has to.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
I thought the NYT had folded all their own sports coverage and now it was NYT sports provided by The Athletic (which they own)?
They have but he hasn’t written for The Athletic yet which I find disappointing.
I spy a pic change. You've become Hugh Grant. Very nice.
You can't recognise a knight of the realm. How embarrassing.
Grant is probably overdue a knighthood. Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
His naughtiness with hookers probably a black mark against 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.
Morning All! Agree. I worked full time until I was 65, then took on various part-time pharmaceutical roles until I was just past 70, by which time the costs and time involved in maintaining my registration were in danger of becoming prohibitive. So I stopped and did some voluntary work until Covid came along. After which the infirmities of old age rather caught up with me, but I still do a little for a couple of local charities, and I run a Group for the local u3a.
Its a very good idea, having a more gradual pension system could also be the answer to things like the WFA. Start it at 75-80ish instead of 66 and it would be a lot less divisive.
Feels better than the current setup to me, someone in their early sixties working 3/4 days a week would be fine as would someone 68-74 working 1 or 2 days a week.
Yes, I worked full-time into late 60s, then dropped to 4 days a week and in the end just 2 days a week, before finally calling it a day a few months ago at age 74. It's been a very smooth progression and I'm financially OK for life without being wealthy. The main hurdle would be an expensive care home, but I'm fortunate in being fairly indifferent to my surroundings, so I assume that even if I need a care home I could fit in near the bottom of the ladder. I think it varies enormously from one individual to the next, and any sensible system needs to be sufficiently flexible to accomodate that.
Politically, I've not felt the slightest desire to move to the right, as many pensioners apparently do, but I do feel a degree of indifference to what society is like 50 years from now. If I had kids it might make a difference, but as things stand I'm somewhat content to let the world develop as it thinks fit, while retaining concern for the underdevelomed world.
Comments
Agree. I worked full time until I was 65, then took on various part-time pharmaceutical roles until I was just past 70, by which time the costs and time involved in maintaining my registration were in danger of becoming prohibitive. So I stopped and did some voluntary work until Covid came along.
After which the infirmities of old age rather caught up with me, but I still do a little for a couple of local charities, and I run a Group for the local u3a.
Hell, try Hard Talk on one of those subscription platforms?
As a nation we’ve backed ourselves into something of a pickle.
(Also: a question to which I don’t know the actual answer: compared to say, a decade or 2 decades earlier did the LibDem shifting of the tax-free band actually represent a real-terms increase? Or was it just undoing a decade or so of prior fiscal drag?)
However, Cannock is within walking distance of my house and Rugeley is £20 for the taxi and then double the price of the ticket.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/c903x2p29k1t#LiveReporting
They need to be subjected to a HARDTALK special.
Last year, in a America, we filled up with petrol and were about to leave when the car next to us left with the nozzle still in the car when they drove off. The driver ripped the hose clean out of the petrol pump. I shouted at my wife to go go go, which she did and then promptly parked about 20 metres away at which point I shouted to her to move properly a long way away from where we were. She did.
Nothing happened, but I wasn't risking it.
I was an active conservative member long before you were born, only voted Blair because he was right at the time, and I am not a Johnson hater but his behaviour eventually caught up with him and he paid the price
On Bishops I was confirmed into the COE by the Bishop of Durham in 1957 and was a server for several years and knew the communion service inside out
That does not prevent me from supporting the ending of the bishops in the HOL but then I would end the whole concept of the HOL
My point about the IMF is more about a shorthand for what happens when the socialists run out of other peoples money. I'm aware that it's not quite like last time round as we run a floating reserve currency.
What worries me is that the end of this road is looking quite close. We're running more or less a primary surplus, but the government is massively underwater because of lunatic levels of historic borrowing, which is now starting to compound on itself. There is literally no more tax money to squeeze out of the economy, and the government can't cut spending because they are too frightened of the squealing from special interest groups.
This either ends in a default which will probably collapse the banking sector, or the printing presses go on until we get hyperinflation. Neither seems appealing (although if we're wise we'll take the default).
Something like
60-67 - 25% pension
68-74 - 75% pension
75+ - full pension
Feels better than the current setup to me, someone in their early sixties working 3/4 days a week would be fine as would someone 68-74 working 1 or 2 days a week.
Inflation down.
REEVES.
Looking at the second day in Multan I see that Pope has at least managed to score.
The CofE is broad enough that it has atheists amongst its Ministers, so I don't think that it would be impossible to cope with a Buddhist monarch. There people who will say so of course, for political reasons. But twas ever thus !
I think there already are probably quite a number of zealous evangelicals in the HoL, though they will be British style rather than Usonian style. And will perhaps be zealous around particular questions rather than "religion".
The bus depot is also about to be closed and sold for housing.
Plus soccer is a good old English word, comes from Football Association, well exclusively from association.
But has he made any runs?
Even more useless fact.
(Remember with Sarah Mullally it could have been worse. Welby wanted Paula Vennells…)
Or Fabricating [del] who was thrashed in Lichfield.
It also depends what you mean by Conservative; I would not call the current incarnation of the Conservative Party, "Conservative".
The last Bishop known to me I would know to call Conservative was probably Rt Rev Bill Westwood, Bishop of Peterborough 1984-1995. He was described as Thatcherite at the time iirc. But there may be approx 200 Bishops appointed since 1990, so it is a big field.
It would very much depend on what the policy was - I'm sure you can find many policies even under the 2019-2024 Government that some would support. There's always a lot that is non-partisan.
I think Mrs Thatcher upended the "suggest two and the PM will appoint the first in the list" system that used to exist when she appointed George Carey as ABC, who was second on the list. He was a bit reactionary in his later years - but again on particular questions mainly around some areas of social conservatism, rather than purely on tribal loyalty.
It's a valuable national asset. We may need to sell it one day.
The Government has made the equivalent of two exceptional hires for every day of Sir Keir Starmer’s premiership so far, prompting claims he has used his first few months in charge to stack Whitehall with allies.
The appointments have been made using a rule that allows ministers to circumnavigate the usual Civil Service recruitment process. This should generally only be done for short-term placements, where “highly specialist skills” are required, or when re-hiring former civil servants previously appointed on merit.
Analysis of the data by The Telegraph reveals that there have been at least 228 exceptional hires since July. The true number is likely to be higher, as figures were only available for nine departments.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2024/10/16/labour-hires-200-civil-service-cronies/
Certainly deserves on more than does the ridiculous Williamson. Better actor, too.
Both Pakistan opening bowlers have played for Whiston Parish Church CC in the South Yorkshire Premier Cricket League. I wonder if that's ever happened before in Test cricket.
"A Countdown champion has appeared in court accused of stabbing a rival contestant and Cambridge University graduate at a quiz event."
https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/countdown-champion-accused-knife-attack-30153804
The second one is bizarre. Why stab a random Cambridge graduate?
ASLEF announce underground workers including drivers to strike next month over pay
As inevitable as night follows day
"Why Didn't the Soviets Automate Their Economy?: Cybernetics in the USSR"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUig0Qwnc4I
Or shorter form 5-10 minute explainers
Monsieur Z
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxA-IfRifgE Corporatism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O00Xl9GQsoA Fascism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPshrwr7wa4 Factions of the Left
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SVsEpY1PHDo Factions of Conservatism
Viki1999 (now defunct)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNz8dOgpFg4 Maoism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP6SE-mYD0s Trotskyism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CS2jUjNc5tk Leninism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MmnMF7AvDjk Juche
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I_GOZAESvXg Capitalism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1bumXoY1Bg Socialism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vsn0L4psuK4 Anarchism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOGV9_XrKbA Syndicalism
The Marxism Project "Lenin in Five Minutes" playlist
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLuzqoNvqVKycJY0AVKfj8ahzDEkqYonN-
As epitomised by this match.
https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/england-marylebone-cricket-club-tour-of-australia-1903-04-61702/australia-vs-england-1st-test-62473/full-scorecard
Honestly why would you cheat on Liz Hurley?
https://x.com/elliereeves/status/1846263725705384212
What is that worth in terms of saved national debt interest?
My guestimate: £1-1.5bn per annum.
Politically, I've not felt the slightest desire to move to the right, as many pensioners apparently do, but I do feel a degree of indifference to what society is like 50 years from now. If I had kids it might make a difference, but as things stand I'm somewhat content to let the world develop as it thinks fit, while retaining concern for the underdevelomed world.