BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
Looks like the alleged type of touching of bottom that went on regularly in the 1970s in workplaces but is unacceptable now legally as minor sexual assault and with HR.
Aaron was a regular on here before being elected and a good poster, a pity. Though he didn't help himself with his moral high ground attack on Boris over partygate with this news now
I wonder if the Israeli attack on Iran was partly about punishing Russia? An enfeebled Iran is not helpful to Putin and obviously it reduces the opportunity to provide him with missiles. Netanyahu does a good impression of Michael Corleone settling all the family business though Gazan civilians have paid a high price for it.
Netanyahu has made many mistakes. One was siding more with Russia in 2022/3, rather than with Ukraine. Then when Russia started siding with Iran, Netanyahu was forced to perform a slight change in position. He has realised that Russia is not Israel's friend.
Israel has more than enough reason to dislike Iran, without bothering about Russia. They will be worried about technology exchange from Russia to Iran, though.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I've looked a few times at evening up (I laid Trump some time ago and backed Harris even earlier, along with Biden as they both seemed too long for sitting pres and VP) but I just don't find the odds on Trump appealing.
Four digit* loss for me if Trump wins though.
*happily with a decimal point slap bang in the middle of those four digits
I had a nearly 4 figures loss when I called Theresa May the wrong way, and did not manage to back out in time.
So I'm staying clear .
You’re not the only one who lost well into three figures on Theresa May.
Don’t do spread bets kids.
I lost a lot spread betting (on financial markets) 20 years ago and haven't touched them since. I knew I was in trouble when Sporting Index sent me a rather nice Christmas gift.
That’s a bad sign.
A friend of mine used to get VIP invites to the races all the time, until one day it dawned on him why the bookie was so keen to buy him a lot of champagne and caviar.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
re reparations which are analagous to apologies for past deeds I am with Jonathan Sumption here. To apologise for a past deed because it is now deemed immoral, say, is wrong because to do so makes the assumption that values never change and, by implication, that our current values are right and "good" now and forever more. Which is pretty much how religions operate and it is no good thing for the State to operate as a religion.
That seems a rather tortured argument. So modern day Germany has no business apologising for the holocaust because it would be immoral to assume that the current view that the holocaust is a bad thing is not going to change? Maybe in the future we will think the holocaust was totally fine - and so we should shut up about it right now? Have I got this right? Sumption always seems to be one of those terribly clever people who always comes up with the wrong answer.
Explain to me what the German apology is actually for. Describe it to me. What is it saying.
We, the German people, our parents and grandparents, committed an unforgivable crime. The German state benefited from taking property and from unpaid labour. We have a duty to remember what happened and to ensure it never happens again... something like this is how I would hope Germany feels. Of course they have already apologized and made reparations. The alternative is, what exactly? This has nothing to do with us? We thought it was OK at the time and our current sense that it wasn't ok may only be temporary? Moral judgements are impossible?
My own view is that nobody in Germany today has anything to be guilty about. We can all agree that the Nazis (and their helpers), were a vile bunch.
I don't go with that last sentence. Most of the helpers of the Nazis were ordinary everyday people, groomed and manipulated into being beasts, or compliant. I do not know whether, when push comes to shove and the stormtrooper is on my doorstep, or the administrator demanding I tick off the identities of the Jews on the list on his clipboard subject to my children being banned from education, I would have it in me to be a hero. Debates around the first sentence are more complex / nuanced.
On the last sentence, "There but for the grace of God", or similar by anyone who wants to write a non-God-referencing version, is a true statement.
Morality and practical ethics are fragile, and can easily be shattered or undermined. Consider Guantanamo in the last 20 years, and the abuses in the 'war on terror', and waterboarding, and the efforts made to justify the values underlying those practices.
That is in large measure what the 'rules based order', and whether it will be preserved is about. It is a deeply inadequate structure, but will what emerges after any putative collapse be better?
That's fair too. Browning's Ordinary Men, makes your point, very well. So, too, the TV play, Conspiracy.
People were rarely placed in a position where they had to be heroes, in order to resist. Rather, those who were not strongly committed to Nazism, mainly acted mainly out of group loyalty.
And, I suppose, going back to the discussion about colonialism, if it's a choice between your family and community of European settlers, and the local Indian tribe, well that's a choice that's going to make itself (as it would, for members of the Indian tribe, in the opposite direction).
That's one reason there is an argument to treat Russians in some way as victims of a several systems treating them for 800 years as a raw material inputs into somebody else's empire, with no inherent value. A similar comment could be made wrt to Western societies up until the last several centuries, including for example the idea of child labour in cotton mills or Victorian chimneys being disposable human beings.
And the Russia-China-and-others axis wants to treat human life as disposable, which the "rules based system" has imperfectly mitigated to some extent.
That's my basis for critiquing practices we have collaborated with ourselves as a country - even as simply as the way we co-operated with China, whilst turning a blind eye to Tibet / Genocide etc. And I won't buy the "it's over there, and noting to do with us" BS.
That I think, is what Ukraine has brought to a head for many.
Essentially, do we back our values, or not?
Nothing suggests to me that the British upper classes of the early 19th century were any less exploitative than their counterparts around the world. You only have to read contemporary novelists to see that many upper class characters have horrible attitudes towards the lower orders. They just had the sense to quit while they were ahead.
My own reason for supporting aid to Ukraine is less because Putin's actions are evil (though they are), and more that we have a very clear interest in not letting Russia absorb Ukraine. If we let Putin win, then all that we're doing is teaching him to do it again, in the Baltic States, the Sulika Gap, and Moldova. And, then, all we're doing is emboldening those European leaders who wish to serve as Putin's Gauleiter.
Nice to see Ladybird books still going. Didn’t realise they had branched out into social commentary but good for them.
Those satirical Ladybird books are an excellent (and usually pretty well written) reintroduction to the genius of Ladybird artwork. I don't know who writes them but the choice of pictures to match the text on each page is brilliant.
Other efforts, e.g. the satirical Famous Five books, have been a bit weak and unfunny by comparison.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Come here on 6th November (maybe a few days later) if you are in need of shirt donations...
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Come here on 6th November (maybe a few days later) if you are in need of shirt donations...
But hopefully without the director of the FBI accusing her of all sorts of (unsubstantiated) things on the nation's front pages, a few days before the election.
So far, the late breaking news has been rather more detrimental to Trump. And his campaign provided it themselves.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Didn’t Celia Walden get married to Piers Morgan? Questionable judgement!
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
Good morning
This is the first post that I have read this morning, and I can only say I agree with you, but are saddened and disapppointed by this news
#DIHK warns that #German economy is set to stagnate in 2025
DIHK is the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and they expect the economy to contract this year as well
In their latest forecasts today, DIHK is slashing their outlook on the German economy and anticipating a 0.2% contraction for this year. As for 2025, they are expecting zero growth in the economy in what will be a third year without any real growth in GDP.
"We are not just dealing with a cyclical, but a stubborn structural crisis in Germany. We are greatly concerned about how much Germany is becoming an economic burden for Europe and can no longer fulfil its role as an economic workhorse."
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I'm pretty hopeful. But I agree with Robert (rather than william) that the polling could very easily turn out to have erred several points in either direction.
At the cost of significant blunting my dividend from a Harris win, I'm also now very slightly green on Trump, too.
Fair enough. I'm not going that far on a betting adjustment but I can see why you would.
Getting some money on Harris at a good price before Biden withdrew let me reduce my Trump short a bit for zero cost, so I did that. And I've got several hedges, the main ones being Harris PV over 50% laid, Trump to win NC, NV, PA.
Nevertheless if he wins I lose a chunky sum - and tbh that feels ok. Normally I'm dead eyed dick when it comes to betting but this is different. America reelecting Donald Trump despite everything is for me in 'natural disaster' territory, ie something I do not want to make money out of.
Sorry if this goes against PB rules but that's how it is.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I'm pretty hopeful. But I agree with Robert (rather than william) that the polling could very easily turn out to have erred several points in either direction.
At the cost of significant blunting my dividend from a Harris win, I'm also now very slightly green on Trump, too.
Fair enough. I'm not going that far on a betting adjustment but I can see why you would.
Getting some money on Harris at a good price before Biden withdrew let me reduce my Trump short a bit for zero cost, so I did that. And I've got several hedges, the main ones being Harris PV over 50% laid, Trump to win NC, NV, PA.
Nevertheless if he wins I lose a chunky sum - and tbh that feels ok. Normally I'm dead eyed dick when it comes to betting but this is different. America reelecting Donald Trump despite everything is for me in 'natural disaster' territory, ie something I do not want to make money out of.
Sorry if this goes against PB rules but that's how it is.
I'd certainly say that the value lies with Harris, now.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Depends how close it is. Normally the tv networks call it on the night because of the electoral college system means they often don't anywhere near all the votes actually counted, but can takes weeks to actually finish counting everywhere. If it super super super close e.g. Bush / Gore, there will be loads of legal action and it will drag for who knows how long.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
We will probably have a fair idea by the end of the 6th, due to network projections (essentially exit polls, although they're based on the actual results rather than opinion polls) of the states as declarations come in. That only works though if the results aren't close.
States actually count slowly due to the complexity of the multiple elections, so the final official tally won't be for a couple of weeks at least. Then of course if he loses Trump will play silly buggers with the courts.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Check the terms of your bet carefully.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
The Puerto Rico fiasco is one of the rare things that *has* broken through. On the CNN/NYT/WaPo homepages, it's *the* #1 story.
All of that is dangerous for a candidate who still has a big favorables disadvantage with 1 week to go. Any change is marginal. But it's not helpful. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1851069139227746798
Sane washing sort of works with the usual Trump rants about illegals and immigrants, in that the right-leaning Latino voters can be persuaded to believe that "but he doesn't mean us."
Sane washing doesn't work with insults to all Puerto Ricans, as they are American as anyone else. When you insult Puerto Ricans any sound minded Latino should realise "he means us".
Puerto Ricans are a small minority in any particular state so rounding on them could add as many votes as it subtracts. Not all 'Hispanics' are the same and they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. Puerto Ricans in the NE, Cubans in the SE, native Americans in the SW all speak Spanish and they all have individual issues. The customary Norteamericano slur for Spanish speakers relies for its potency on the the idea that they're all the same.
The point about attacking Puerto Ricans is not the size of the group but the fact that they are Americans. They aren't immigrants from Central or South America, they aren't in the US illegally, they are being attacked despite being Americans. If a Puetro Rican isn't in the in-group then no migrant, and no one with roots outside of the US, is ever going to be accepted as an equal by MAGA-GOP.
In US, Puerto Ricans they have long been looked down on by everybody else / butt of casual racism, from white's, blacks, latinos. I don't fully understand why.
Perhaps because Puerto Rico is still effectively a colonial possession ? (And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
it was 88 hours after voting ended that CNN called it in 2020...
Unless it's a complete landslide it won't be called on the 5th or even the 6th/7th...
Disappointing, and I think politics is almost set-up for mischief.
It's extremely intense, personal and stressful, there's a lot of alcohol around, you are somewhat idolised as an MP by those who work in it, you're away from home a lot, and there's a lot of temptation with bright attractive young people.
Yes, everyone should have discipline and you need an awful lot of it.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Check the terms of your bet carefully.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
Betfair's settlement will highly likely be on January 6th, unless Trump has clearly won. They've cleaned up the rules after the mess of last time.
Aaron Bell decision to stand down was noted at the time as a bit odd. Initially he said he was definitely going to stand for re-election and had a good reputation and stood up the Boris re partygate, so he might have been one that might have surprised to the upside, then very last minute, he said no I am standing down, for 'personal and family reasons', then radio silence.
I've said it before on here, but I think some of these incidents that happen in parliament - and there have been far too many - is partly down to the weird nature of the job and the lifestyle it causes. Having essentially two workplaces, often at different ends of the country - parliament and constituency, subsidised drinkies and lots of meetings with strangers, etc, etc, is not conducive to a normal family life. There's also a certain amount of power tripping going on.
This is not to excuse it; but the lifestyle is not one I would want.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
Isn't it the case that if Trump wins it'll be called and become a fait accompli pretty quickly, but if Harris wins it's going to take weeks or months.
I'm definitely not staying up to watch this one. Never a good idea anyway because of timezones, but I don't expect to get anything either meaningful or optimistic overnight. Will just wake up the next morning when the Today programme comes on the radio announcing Trump is looking set for a comfortable win.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I've looked a few times at evening up (I laid Trump some time ago and backed Harris even earlier, along with Biden as they both seemed too long for sitting pres and VP) but I just don't find the odds on Trump appealing.
Four digit* loss for me if Trump wins though.
*happily with a decimal point slap bang in the middle of those four digits
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Check the terms of your bet carefully.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
it was 88 hours after voting ended that CNN called it in 2020...
Unless it's a complete landslide it won't be called on the 5th or even the 6th/7th...
They got burned in 2000, calling it for Bush when Florida was still very close. If they hadn't done that, and instead waited for the actual results in Florida, Bush would have been in a much weaker position in front of the Supreme Court.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
Isn't it the case that if Trump wins it'll be called and become a fait accompli pretty quickly, but if Harris wins it's going to take weeks or months.
I'm definitely not staying up to watch this one. Never a good idea anyway because of timezones, but I don't expect to get anything either meaningful or optimistic overnight. Will just wake up the next morning when the Today programme comes on the radio announcing Trump is looking set for a comfortable win.
Actually the CNN blokle who stands by the magic wall (his name escapes me) normally provides very good insight. Drilling down into key areas from which they give pretty good guide to what is happening within a few hours.
The most annoying part of the election coverage is the "exit poll"....BREEEEEEAAAKKKKKING NEWS.....after the break, more from the exit poll.....CNN can exclusively reveal that in our exit poll, left handed Asians who like cats voted 49/51 for Harris.
They never just give you our exit poll predicts the electoral college result as they do here with our exit poll.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Come here on 6th November (maybe a few days later) if you are in need of shirt donations...
But hopefully without the director of the FBI accusing her of all sorts of (unsubstantiated) things on the nation's front pages, a few days before the election.
So far, the late breaking news has been rather more detrimental to Trump. And his campaign provided it themselves.
You can see the impact of that on the 2016 graph. The gap in Clinton's favour was a lot larger pre-Comey, and had only partially recovered by polling day.
The recent modest trend in the favourability ratings has been in favour of Trump. A few weeks ago the advantage Harris had was around 11 points and growing.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
Isn't it the case that if Trump wins it'll be called and become a fait accompli pretty quickly, but if Harris wins it's going to take weeks or months.
I'm definitely not staying up to watch this one. Never a good idea anyway because of timezones, but I don't expect to get anything either meaningful or optimistic overnight. Will just wake up the next morning when the Today programme comes on the radio announcing Trump is looking set for a comfortable win.
Actually the CNN blokle who stands by the magic wall (his name escapes me) normally provides very good insight. Drilling down into key areas from which they give pretty good guide to what is happening within a few hours.
The most annoying part of the election coverage is the "exit poll"....BREEEEEEAAAKKKKKING NEWS.....after the break, more from the exit poll.....CNN can exclusively reveal that in our exit poll, left handed Asians who like cats voted 49/51 for Harris.
They never just give you our exit poll predicts the electoral college result as they do here with our exit poll.
If I remember correctly many of the questions from the CNN exit poll for 2020 made it seem like Trump was again doing surprisingly well, because so many of the ridiculous questions they ask are quite vague and also as we see here people often respond to polling questions with we absolutely love more tax on everything for better NHS, nationalise everything, etc...and then Corbyn comes along and says I'll do that, and people go ohhh no not that.
Shame to hear about Tissue Price, a good poster indeed 'back in the day.'
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
Come here on 6th November (maybe a few days later) if you are in need of shirt donations...
The Puerto Rico fiasco is one of the rare things that *has* broken through. On the CNN/NYT/WaPo homepages, it's *the* #1 story.
All of that is dangerous for a candidate who still has a big favorables disadvantage with 1 week to go. Any change is marginal. But it's not helpful. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1851069139227746798
Sane washing sort of works with the usual Trump rants about illegals and immigrants, in that the right-leaning Latino voters can be persuaded to believe that "but he doesn't mean us."
Sane washing doesn't work with insults to all Puerto Ricans, as they are American as anyone else. When you insult Puerto Ricans any sound minded Latino should realise "he means us".
Puerto Ricans are a small minority in any particular state so rounding on them could add as many votes as it subtracts. Not all 'Hispanics' are the same and they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. Puerto Ricans in the NE, Cubans in the SE, native Americans in the SW all speak Spanish and they all have individual issues. The customary Norteamericano slur for Spanish speakers relies for its potency on the the idea that they're all the same.
The point about attacking Puerto Ricans is not the size of the group but the fact that they are Americans. They aren't immigrants from Central or South America, they aren't in the US illegally, they are being attacked despite being Americans. If a Puetro Rican isn't in the in-group then no migrant, and no one with roots outside of the US, is ever going to be accepted as an equal by MAGA-GOP.
In US, Puerto Ricans they have long been looked down on by everybody else / butt of casual racism, from white's, blacks, latinos. I don't fully understand why.
Perhaps because Puerto Rico is still effectively a colonial possession ? (And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
US racists seem to loathe Puerto Ricans even more than they loathe blacks. I was rather dumbfounded when one American guest described them as "a mongrel race, of a particularly unsavoury kind."
The Puerto Rico fiasco is one of the rare things that *has* broken through. On the CNN/NYT/WaPo homepages, it's *the* #1 story.
All of that is dangerous for a candidate who still has a big favorables disadvantage with 1 week to go. Any change is marginal. But it's not helpful. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1851069139227746798
Sane washing sort of works with the usual Trump rants about illegals and immigrants, in that the right-leaning Latino voters can be persuaded to believe that "but he doesn't mean us."
Sane washing doesn't work with insults to all Puerto Ricans, as they are American as anyone else. When you insult Puerto Ricans any sound minded Latino should realise "he means us".
Puerto Ricans are a small minority in any particular state so rounding on them could add as many votes as it subtracts. Not all 'Hispanics' are the same and they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. Puerto Ricans in the NE, Cubans in the SE, native Americans in the SW all speak Spanish and they all have individual issues. The customary Norteamericano slur for Spanish speakers relies for its potency on the the idea that they're all the same.
The point about attacking Puerto Ricans is not the size of the group but the fact that they are Americans. They aren't immigrants from Central or South America, they aren't in the US illegally, they are being attacked despite being Americans. If a Puetro Rican isn't in the in-group then no migrant, and no one with roots outside of the US, is ever going to be accepted as an equal by MAGA-GOP.
In US, Puerto Ricans they have long been looked down on by everybody else / butt of casual racism, from white's, blacks, latinos. I don't fully understand why.
Perhaps because Puerto Rico is still effectively a colonial possession ? (And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
US racists seem to loathe Puerto Ricans even more than they loathe blacks. I was rather dumbfounded when one American guest described them as "a mongrel race, of a particularly unsavoury kind."
There does seem to be held in special category. Chris Rock used to do a bit about black folk are racist too, you all got that Uncle just loves to hate on the Puerto Ricans. Where as for example, Cubans are often held up in very positive light.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
Even if someone is signed off into the ESA support group (i.e. can't work nor expected to even do work-related back to work activities at jobcentre) on mental health in theory they can still do a few hours of "permitted work" a week.
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
A similar one to that is I know people who won't tell the Department (whatever it is called) that they can cycle, because an officer or box-ticker of some sort may then assume "Oh you must be able to walk fine", so they will lose a chunk of the money they need to make their life bearable. I know of people who can barely walk, or with significant pain (eg one lady with fibromyalgia), but who can cycle 5, or 15, or 25 miles - sometimes with a EAPC.
It is a political issue I have with the current version of the Conservatives. There is a rhetoric around "help people back into work", but the underlying motivation is a kneejerk "how can we FORCE these SCROUNGERS to get off benefits" - an animated version of the Daily Mail, which is imo poisonous.
We saw that in the lack of consultation before the announcement that Ticket Offices would be closed, and the attempt to ram it through, whilst passing it off as due to the industry not a political policy.
As far as I can see, Reform take a generally more extreme version of a similar position, from a more knuckle-dragging set of values.
I think there are questions around the current setup, but these approaches are not how to address it.
There are a lot of similarities about the policy on disability rights with the discussion about migrants - an overwhelming sense of a moral imperative to do absolutely everything possible to help people, with any limits being morally impossible. This is connected also to the evolution of 'rights' enforced by law.
The problem is that continued unchecked this leads to the failure of society as it collapses under the weight of the obligations that have effectively been socialised.
It is impossible to acknowledge this, which itself is partially a consequence of the triumph of progressive discourse. Even the views expressed by @Casino_Royale would be hard to advance in the mainstream media, unlike the recent past, where the daily mail would act as a counter balance.
But over time it just becomes more and more obvious. Ultimately figures like Trump come along and blow it all apart.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
It's not "declared" the day after, so much as assumed.
November Next Tuesday: they vote on the day. Those votes are counted overnight, although some things like overseas and soldier votes may take a little longer. At this point the news media declare who has won and the loser concedes. Usually.
December If the loser does not concede then it takes a few weeks longer. Each state finishes totting up its votes and assigns its electoral votes to the person who won that state. Then in December the state representatives meet (virtually: it's not the same building) and register their votes. It is at this point that the bookmakers declare who has won if they haven't already.
January The votes are then physically taken to Washington to be certified in the Capitol, the building in which the riots were last time. The winner is then inaugurated a few days later
The Puerto Rico fiasco is one of the rare things that *has* broken through. On the CNN/NYT/WaPo homepages, it's *the* #1 story.
All of that is dangerous for a candidate who still has a big favorables disadvantage with 1 week to go. Any change is marginal. But it's not helpful. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1851069139227746798
Sane washing sort of works with the usual Trump rants about illegals and immigrants, in that the right-leaning Latino voters can be persuaded to believe that "but he doesn't mean us."
Sane washing doesn't work with insults to all Puerto Ricans, as they are American as anyone else. When you insult Puerto Ricans any sound minded Latino should realise "he means us".
Puerto Ricans are a small minority in any particular state so rounding on them could add as many votes as it subtracts. Not all 'Hispanics' are the same and they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. Puerto Ricans in the NE, Cubans in the SE, native Americans in the SW all speak Spanish and they all have individual issues. The customary Norteamericano slur for Spanish speakers relies for its potency on the the idea that they're all the same.
The point about attacking Puerto Ricans is not the size of the group but the fact that they are Americans. They aren't immigrants from Central or South America, they aren't in the US illegally, they are being attacked despite being Americans. If a Puetro Rican isn't in the in-group then no migrant, and no one with roots outside of the US, is ever going to be accepted as an equal by MAGA-GOP.
In US, Puerto Ricans they have long been looked down on by everybody else / butt of casual racism, from white's, blacks, latinos. I don't fully understand why.
Perhaps because Puerto Rico is still effectively a colonial possession ? (And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
US racists seem to loathe Puerto Ricans even more than they loathe blacks. I was rather dumbfounded when one American guest described them as "a mongrel race, of a particularly unsavoury kind."
There does seem to be held in special category. Chris Rock used to do a bit about black folk are racist too, you all got that Uncle just loves to hates the Puerto Ricans.
The same man also expressed the opinion that AIDS was caused by Africans having sex with monkeys (only, he didn't use the word "Africans.") Far from being an ignorant redneck, the man is a very successful cancer doctor.
Just a reminder my holiday starts on Friday and doesn’t end until Tuesday 12th of November.
Nothing major happens when PB editors go on holiday.
Fortunately my break only covers the Tory leadership result, the presidential election, fortunately I dodged the budget.
Anyhoo, I forsee the American result to be announced on Friday the 8th of November as I am having my regular working man’s lunch with JohnO that day in some place called Claridge’s.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I've looked a few times at evening up (I laid Trump some time ago and backed Harris even earlier, along with Biden as they both seemed too long for sitting pres and VP) but I just don't find the odds on Trump appealing.
Four digit* loss for me if Trump wins though.
*happily with a decimal point slap bang in the middle of those four digits
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Check the terms of your bet carefully.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
I do contribute to this forum but I do not bet
Last time the US election offered the unique opportunity to bet (at short odds) after the result but before Betfair / SMarkets settled the market.
Just a reminder my holiday starts on Friday and doesn’t end until Tuesday 12th of November.
Nothing major happens when PB editors go on holiday.
Fortunately my break only covers the Tory leadership result, the presidential election, fortunately I dodged the budget.
Anyhoo, I forsee the American result to be announced on Friday the 8th of November as I am having my regular working man’s lunch with JohnO that day in some place called Claridge’s.
With Trump, the result doesn't get declared until early January, if then.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
it was 88 hours after voting ended that CNN called it in 2020...
Unless it's a complete landslide it won't be called on the 5th or even the 6th/7th...
Some contested states may well be called quicker, though ?
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
Even if someone is signed off into the ESA support group (i.e. can't work nor expected to even do work-related back to work activities at jobcentre) on mental health in theory they can still do a few hours of "permitted work" a week.
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
A similar one to that is I know people who won't tell the Department (whatever it is called) that they can cycle, because an officer or box-ticker of some sort may then assume "Oh you must be able to walk fine", so they will lose a chunk of the money they need to make their life bearable. I know of people who can barely walk, or with significant pain (eg one lady with fibromyalgia), but who can cycle 5, or 15, or 25 miles - sometimes with a EAPC.
It is a political issue I have with the current version of the Conservatives. There is a rhetoric around "help people back into work", but the underlying motivation is a kneejerk "how can we FORCE these SCROUNGERS to get off benefits" - an animated version of the Daily Mail, which is imo poisonous.
We saw that in the lack of consultation before the announcement that Ticket Offices would be closed, and the attempt to ram it through, whilst passing it off as due to the industry not a political policy.
As far as I can see, Reform take a generally more extreme version of a similar position, from a more knuckle-dragging set of values.
I think there are questions around the current setup, but these approaches are not how to address it.
There are a lot of similarities about the policy on disability rights with the discussion about migrants - an overwhelming sense of a moral imperative to do absolutely everything possible to help people, with any limits being morally impossible. This is connected also to the evolution of 'rights' enforced by law.
The problem is that continued unchecked this leads to the failure of society as it collapses under the weight of the obligations that have effectively been socialised.
It is impossible to acknowledge this, which itself is partially a consequence of the triumph of progressive discourse. Even the views expressed by @Casino_Royale would be hard to advance in the mainstream media, unlike the recent past, where the daily mail would act as a counter balance.
But over time it just becomes more and more obvious. Ultimately figures like Trump come along and blow it all apart.
For those that don’t know the story, there is actually a massive garbage problem on Puerto Rico, and one of the complaints of the islanders is the failure of American politicians (of all stripes) to do something about it for decades.
The Puerto Rico fiasco is one of the rare things that *has* broken through. On the CNN/NYT/WaPo homepages, it's *the* #1 story.
All of that is dangerous for a candidate who still has a big favorables disadvantage with 1 week to go. Any change is marginal. But it's not helpful. https://x.com/lxeagle17/status/1851069139227746798
Sane washing sort of works with the usual Trump rants about illegals and immigrants, in that the right-leaning Latino voters can be persuaded to believe that "but he doesn't mean us."
Sane washing doesn't work with insults to all Puerto Ricans, as they are American as anyone else. When you insult Puerto Ricans any sound minded Latino should realise "he means us".
Puerto Ricans are a small minority in any particular state so rounding on them could add as many votes as it subtracts. Not all 'Hispanics' are the same and they don't necessarily see eye-to-eye. Puerto Ricans in the NE, Cubans in the SE, native Americans in the SW all speak Spanish and they all have individual issues. The customary Norteamericano slur for Spanish speakers relies for its potency on the the idea that they're all the same.
The point about attacking Puerto Ricans is not the size of the group but the fact that they are Americans. They aren't immigrants from Central or South America, they aren't in the US illegally, they are being attacked despite being Americans. If a Puetro Rican isn't in the in-group then no migrant, and no one with roots outside of the US, is ever going to be accepted as an equal by MAGA-GOP.
In US, Puerto Ricans they have long been looked down on by everybody else / butt of casual racism, from white's, blacks, latinos. I don't fully understand why.
Perhaps because Puerto Rico is still effectively a colonial possession ? (And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
US racists seem to loathe Puerto Ricans even more than they loathe blacks. I was rather dumbfounded when one American guest described them as "a mongrel race, of a particularly unsavoury kind."
There does seem to be held in special category. Chris Rock used to do a bit about black folk are racist too, you all got that Uncle just loves to hate on the Puerto Ricans. Where as for example, Cubans are often held up in very positive light.
I think it was 2002 when I first went to California and I saw first hand how much Latinos hate the Blacks and vice versa.
"In LA, 70 per cent of people are telling me they’ll vote for Trump In 2016 I believed Hillary would triumph, and dressed up as her for Halloween. I won’t make the same mistake again Celia Walden"
California is the last place where Trump needs to do better.
If 70% of Californians are voting for him he's home and hosed. This notion of the shy Trump voter seems real.
We all owe (reluctantly) a debt of gratitude to @williamglenn who called it for Trump when the rest of us were on Harris to win the popular vote and the Electoral College.
If 70% of Californians are voting for Trump then every single poll is so far out they may as well not bother.
This is just a crap anecdote from someone who doesn't realise the people they talk to are not an accurate cross section of real world..
You are somebody who skews pessimistic on this sort of thing, though, I think that's fair. Not liking the NV early voting data, I have to say, but I remain genuinely hopeful.
My betting book is still very long Harris, short Trump but I do have some hedges on in the state betting and the vote % bands.
I've looked a few times at evening up (I laid Trump some time ago and backed Harris even earlier, along with Biden as they both seemed too long for sitting pres and VP) but I just don't find the odds on Trump appealing.
Four digit* loss for me if Trump wins though.
*happily with a decimal point slap bang in the middle of those four digits
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
I'd hope they'd be confident enough to stop it immediately, which is what was needed.
It should definitely result in a re-education course but to be honest I'm kind of with Stocky here in thinking the reaction is just a little OTT.
All this drinking with colleagues is a bad idea, though. Is parliament a club or a workplace?
Shame to hear about Tissue Price, a good poster indeed 'back in the day.'
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
Hope you are ok if you are reading this Aaron.
I know this forum is very heavily skewed towards men, particularly straight, white, older men.
But can we not see why women say they feel safer left alone with a bear than a man.
How would anyone on here feel if they had their bottom fondled by a man twenty years their senior, and their boss?
As men we all have a duty to do better, and be better.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
Check the terms of your bet carefully.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
I do contribute to this forum but I do not bet
Last time the US election offered the unique opportunity to bet (at short odds) after the result but before Betfair / SMarkets settled the market.
Yes that was great. ISTR being able to lay Trump at about 5 after he had without a doubt lost.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
Even if someone is signed off into the ESA support group (i.e. can't work nor expected to even do work-related back to work activities at jobcentre) on mental health in theory they can still do a few hours of "permitted work" a week.
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
A similar one to that is I know people who won't tell the Department (whatever it is called) that they can cycle, because an officer or box-ticker of some sort may then assume "Oh you must be able to walk fine", so they will lose a chunk of the money they need to make their life bearable. I know of people who can barely walk, or with significant pain (eg one lady with fibromyalgia), but who can cycle 5, or 15, or 25 miles - sometimes with a EAPC.
It is a political issue I have with the current version of the Conservatives. There is a rhetoric around "help people back into work", but the underlying motivation is a kneejerk "how can we FORCE these SCROUNGERS to get off benefits" - an animated version of the Daily Mail, which is imo poisonous.
We saw that in the lack of consultation before the announcement that Ticket Offices would be closed, and the attempt to ram it through, whilst passing it off as due to the industry not a political policy.
As far as I can see, Reform take a generally more extreme version of a similar position, from a more knuckle-dragging set of values.
I think there are questions around the current setup, but these approaches are not how to address it.
There are a lot of similarities about the policy on disability rights with the discussion about migrants - an overwhelming sense of a moral imperative to do absolutely everything possible to help people, with any limits being morally impossible. This is connected also to the evolution of 'rights' enforced by law.
The problem is that continued unchecked this leads to the failure of society as it collapses under the weight of the obligations that have effectively been socialised.
It is impossible to acknowledge this, which itself is partially a consequence of the triumph of progressive discourse. Even the views expressed by @Casino_Royale would be hard to advance in the mainstream media, unlike the recent past, where the daily mail would act as a counter balance.
But over time it just becomes more and more obvious. Ultimately figures like Trump come along and blow it all apart.
Is this what blowing it apart looks like?
Yes exactly - the freezing of meaningful discussion or criticism leads to this kind of reaction. Trump represents this perfectly, and in so many ways.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
I think it's very unlikely to be declared on the 5th. Some networks might 'call' it then, but the official declaration ill likely take days or weeks.
Isn't it the case that if Trump wins it'll be called and become a fait accompli pretty quickly, but if Harris wins it's going to take weeks or months.
I'm definitely not staying up to watch this one. Never a good idea anyway because of timezones, but I don't expect to get anything either meaningful or optimistic overnight. Will just wake up the next morning when the Today programme comes on the radio announcing Trump is looking set for a comfortable win.
Actually the CNN blokle who stands by the magic wall (his name escapes me) normally provides very good insight. Drilling down into key areas from which they give pretty good guide to what is happening within a few hours.
The most annoying part of the election coverage is the "exit poll"....BREEEEEEAAAKKKKKING NEWS.....after the break, more from the exit poll.....CNN can exclusively reveal that in our exit poll, left handed Asians who like cats voted 49/51 for Harris.
They never just give you our exit poll predicts the electoral college result as they do here with our exit poll.
Isn't the key difference that the way the electoral college works in most places is winner-takes-all in the state. So whereas in the UK, there are 650 seats and things balance out a bit (the exit poll this July was interesting in that they published local detail and got a LOT wrong but it didn't matter as swings and roundabouts), in the US it is a handful of close states... if you call Pennsylvania wrong, you've quite probably called the election wrong full stop.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
This is why I advocate for UBI (through negative income tax) coupled with a more flexible approach to 'employment'.
Work a little bit and get a little more money on top of your UBI. Work a lot more and get a lot more money. All carrot, no stick.
Everything tapered so it avoids cliff edges and effective tax rates approaching 100% that can occur in the current system.
And a chance to scrap the mean-spirited and judgemental culture of constant 'assessment'.
IN called instantly for Trump. 42 minutes later VT for Biden. 52 mins. MA; MD; DE; DC Biden / OK Trump 58 mins KY Trump 1:09 . TN Trump 1:20 mins. WV Trump 1:54 NJ Biden AR Trump 2:04 SD Trump; CT Biden
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
That sounds questionable by the school.
The law is that they are required to make reasonable adjustments, which should be possible in those work systems. That certainly dates to EA 2010, but is likely to be part of DDA 1995.
That's a small part of the much larger issue around ignorance / lack of awareness - for which there are multidimensional causes.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
That sounds questionable by the school.
The law is that they are required to make reasonable adjustments, which should be possible in those work systems. That certainly dates to EA 2010, but is likely to be part of DDA 1995.
She's a maths teacher though - another school will have employed her instantly...
Shame to hear about Tissue Price, a good poster indeed 'back in the day.'
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
Hope you are ok if you are reading this Aaron.
I know this forum is very heavily skewed towards men, particularly straight, white, older men.
But can we not see why women say they feel safer left alone with a bear than a man.
How would anyone on here feel if they had their bottom fondled by a man twenty years their senior, and their boss?
As men we all have a duty to do better, and be better.
Indeed. It’s not right anyway, and it’s doubly not right when you’re a senior manager in an organisation.
Getting drunk with colleagues in this way is now pretty much always a bad idea.
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
LOL
Do we have a deal?
Do you regard Russia as a democracy?
Technically it genuinely is, but it has quirks. It's managed to distance its people from the concept of politics so well that it operates as if it wasn't. This is the characteristic of autocracies, separating the government from the people.
No. By any meaningful technical definition a democracy consists of a lot more than elections - which in any case need to be free and fair. A democracy requires the rule of law, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, etc.
Technically, Russia is very much not a democracy.
The tendency for people to identify democracy with elections, and only elections, is deeply mistaken.
I would argue the main characteristic of a democracy is that there is an opposition, and they can win elections.
In Russia, anyone who looks like vaguely worrying Putin, dies.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Given that on current polling averages Harris would need to win the popular vote by something like 2% to be favorite, and 1% to have a decent chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than Andrew Lilico commenting on stuff he knows bugger all about.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
That sounds questionable by the school.
The law is that they are required to make reasonable adjustments, which should be possible in those work systems. That certainly dates to EA 2010, but is likely to be part of DDA 1995.
That's a small part of the much larger issue around ignorance / lack of awareness - for which there are multidimensional causes.
Yes, very questionable. In my last school before we retired as timetabler I used to have to build in to the rooming etc disabilities of staff and pupils.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
Even if someone is signed off into the ESA support group (i.e. can't work nor expected to even do work-related back to work activities at jobcentre) on mental health in theory they can still do a few hours of "permitted work" a week.
The problem is that very few are willing to do because they don't trust that it will not be used as a reason to take them off ESA at next review ("look, you can do a few hours at the computer at home, therefore you are no longer ill" etc). This is entirely rational response by people on ESA.
The system is hellbent on finding reasons to throw people off the benefit.
A similar one to that is I know people who won't tell the Department (whatever it is called) that they can cycle, because an officer or box-ticker of some sort may then assume "Oh you must be able to walk fine", so they will lose a chunk of the money they need to make their life bearable. I know of people who can barely walk, or with significant pain (eg one lady with fibromyalgia), but who can cycle 5, or 15, or 25 miles - sometimes with a EAPC.
It is a political issue I have with the current version of the Conservatives. There is a rhetoric around "help people back into work", but the underlying motivation is a kneejerk "how can we FORCE these SCROUNGERS to get off benefits" - an animated version of the Daily Mail, which is imo poisonous.
We saw that in the lack of consultation before the announcement that Ticket Offices would be closed, and the attempt to ram it through, whilst passing it off as due to the industry not a political policy.
As far as I can see, Reform take a generally more extreme version of a similar position, from a more knuckle-dragging set of values.
I think there are questions around the current setup, but these approaches are not how to address it.
There are a lot of similarities about the policy on disability rights with the discussion about migrants - an overwhelming sense of a moral imperative to do absolutely everything possible to help people, with any limits being morally impossible. This is connected also to the evolution of 'rights' enforced by law.
The problem is that continued unchecked this leads to the failure of society as it collapses under the weight of the obligations that have effectively been socialised.
It is impossible to acknowledge this, which itself is partially a consequence of the triumph of progressive discourse. Even the views expressed by @Casino_Royale would be hard to advance in the mainstream media, unlike the recent past, where the daily mail would act as a counter balance.
But over time it just becomes more and more obvious. Ultimately figures like Trump come along and blow it all apart.
Is this what blowing it apart looks like?
Yes exactly - the freezing of meaningful discussion or criticism leads to this kind of reaction. Trump represents this perfectly, and in so many ways.
I'm guessing you feel the same about immigrants being called rapists and criminals, the countries they came from shitholes and Kamala Harris being called a c*nt.
Since Trump & co were in power for 4 years, have hardly been silent for the subsequent 4 and the internet is awash with their gamey world view, I'm interested in what you mean by the freezing of meaningful discussion or criticism. Presumably they've been really terrible at framing their arguments in a meaningful way.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Shame to hear about Tissue Price, a good poster indeed 'back in the day.'
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
Hope you are ok if you are reading this Aaron.
You absolute arse.
Groping a junior is now being "very careless over perceptions of power imbalance and consent".
Off topic. But not to forget Saturday 2nd November in the election even bigger than US election, on account it actually matters more to UK policy in long run, not some weird place miles away from us who deserve everything they are daft enough to vote for.
My mum quickly voted for Bobby Jenrick for leader, who she rates as highly as Farage and Trump. My Dad was conflicted between sitting it out, or duty to take part and having to choose one. My Dad thinks Jenrick won’t last anytime, and probably soon replaced by Cleverly, but Badenoch likely to lead the party into the next General Election. I’m telling him he might be over thinking it.
Kemi Badenoch’s conference attack on Maternity Pay and Minimum Wage as being bad for UK, got a surprising amount of attention considering she’s a nobody right now. But wearing a leadership crown, Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition saying such things will have massive coverage and real attention of voters.
Is she right about maternity pay making UK a poor and struggling unproductive country under Starmer and Labour? Because it’s not just money is it, it’s time off as well to make the whole sum? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s lazy civil servants having babies and keeping the birth rate up, because of all the benefits they get denied to all other workers. Giving them £1 but 6 months off is going to be much more ruinous for economy than giving them £25 and just 2 weeks off - that’s maths isn’t it?
You see what I mean all those who’ve voted for Badenoch, those will be our policies at the next General Election we need to start discuss and explain them like this.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
That sounds questionable by the school.
The law is that they are required to make reasonable adjustments, which should be possible in those work systems. That certainly dates to EA 2010, but is likely to be part of DDA 1995.
She's a maths teacher though - another school will have employed her instantly...
For those that don’t know the story, there is actually a massive garbage problem on Puerto Rico, and one of the complaints of the islanders is the failure of American politicians (of all stripes) to do something about it for decades.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
But - if Trump really has closed up in New York, New Hampshire and California, that's a dubious assumption to make. His vote in 2016 was super efficient and he needs to retain that efficiency to stand a chance.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
I'd hope they'd be confident enough to stop it immediately, which is what was needed.
It should definitely result in a re-education course but to be honest I'm kind of with Stocky here in thinking the reaction is just a little OTT.
All this drinking with colleagues is a bad idea, though. Is parliament a club or a workplace?
In the report they call it:
"..a serious case of sexual misconduct.."
Now, I agree with Barty that all sexual misconduct is serious, and I don't think society as a whole takes it seriously enough. However, I think there's some hyperbole inflation with this.
If the reported case qualifies as "serious", then I'm struggling to think what would qualify as simply sexual misconduct without the serious adjective, and there would seem to be a whole range of more serious cases that are now more difficult to distinguish from this case.
Aaron Bell shouldn't have done it, but I think his actions were careless rather than calculated. That's deserving of censure, but the cases where the conduct is repeated and premeditated are much more deserving of the use of serious.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Not by me or Robert, who discussed this the other day. Trump has more supporters this time in places hopeless to him, New York, California, meaning he can be a lot closer in Popular Vote than two previous runs and even worse College defeat, in the actual theory going on here, whoever Lilico is they got it very wrong.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Shame to hear about Tissue Price, a good poster indeed 'back in the day.'
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
Hope you are ok if you are reading this Aaron.
I know this forum is very heavily skewed towards men, particularly straight, white, older men.
But can we not see why women say they feel safer left alone with a bear than a man.
How would anyone on here feel if they had their bottom fondled by a man twenty years their senior, and their boss?
As men we all have a duty to do better, and be better.
Indeed. It’s not right anyway, and it’s doubly not right when you’re a senior manager in an organisation.
Getting drunk with colleagues in this way is now pretty much always a bad idea.
Budget: I get £2,750 a month in benefits and I'm freaking out over cuts.
Nicole Healing, 44, Unemployed.
"Nicole, who uses them and they pronoun, said they receive Employment and Support Allowance of £1,042, Personal Independent Payments of £798, and Housing Benefit of £917 per month.
Though they feel in a "fortunate position" currently, Nicole says: "I feel I am at the mercy of the DWP."
That's £33,000 a year in benefits for a single person.
I know a few people in a category possibly similar to the above. They are educated to a very high (ie postgraduate) level. They become unable to work, sometimes after a few unsuccessful attempts, due to health conditions that seem to be predominantly psychological disorders. Then they get benefit payments from the government that are equivalent to the wage you would get from a full time professional job.
In the end I can only really feel sorry for them. People don't take them seriously, they are viewed as a drain on the state - and they know it.
“I am fearful about the negative rhetoric in the media about disabled people in receipt of benefits."
She was in digital marketing in the civil service so hardly working down the mines.
Whilst I have sympathy for anyone who's not feeling OK those benefits are excessive. I doubt she's fundamentally disabled and unable to do any work.
We all feel awful and struggle from time to time. It doesn't mean we expect everyone else to pay for us.
Yes I think two separate sentiments clash here: 1. Someone who is ill and living off the state probably has a thoroughly unfulfilling life (ordering lots of crap off Temu is most likely a symptom of this) dependent on the considerable but capricious largesse of DWP which in many cases creates a spiral of negativity, not helped by DavidL's point that returning to the workforce is probably unaffordable without a big drop in money coming in; and, 2. Someone working has to pay for that £33k, which seems deeply unfair.
I think a few things definitely follow: 1. There is often a tinge of envy (cf Blanche's comment about having to work 55 hour weeks). I can relate to this sentiment but I think it is fundamentally misplaced - this is not someone to be envied. 2. There is often a further implication that the problem would be lessened if someone's life circumstances could only be made worse (cf the comment about a £1250pcm rent, one possible implication of which is that really this person should be in a £500pcm shithole with mould all over the walls). I think this is also fundamentally misplaced - some people, but very few, would choose this life, whether in a decent flat or not. Worsening their circumstances is a poor route out of this. 3. At a time when someone can be earning +/- £33k from full time employment but is unable to support a family, it is deeply wrong that this person's taxes need to rise in order to fund the £33k going to an unemployed person.
As a result solutions are hard to find - but I think must come from a deeper restructuring of the economy such that living costs are reduced relative to wages. Primarily this must come from a reduction in housing costs (and I say this as someone who hugely depends on a second income from a rental flat to support my own family).
I'm afraid I would do exactly that: reduce it to a room rent or flatshare allowance of £600pcm max and a meal allowance. They can then choose whether to live with friends or family or with others in a similar position. That might not be living in clover but, tough.
These are the choices ordinary working people have to make, who are often under immense pressure themselves, and their taxes shouldn't go to pay for this.
Yes, I can entirely understand that sentiment in the current system - especially in the context of a budget that is going to push taxes up.
I don't think it will help, without a much wider societal shift away from looking after the vulnerable and towards a more brutal/Stoic approach.
(I often find myself personally harking for a more stoic approach - you get out and work regardless - but I have come to reflect that I probably feel this way only because I have never had to work with a significant disability.)
Anecdote alert: one of my colleagues left teaching just this half term. She has worked with me for 8 years whilst having rheumatoid arthritis. She takes a day or two off every six weeks to have blood infusions, without which she cannot move her joints. She worked all through COVID teaching full time remotely despite having to shield. For context, she meets a group of six or seven other people with RA each time she has an infusion and none of them work at all, let alone full time in a school - she is a machine.
But she has finally quit largely because as the school takes on more sixth form students to try to keep itself afloat, she no longer has her own classroom and has to move around the school more, meaning that her joints flared up too much between infusions.
Part of the answer to this problem is to try to ensure employers can better accommodate individuals with disabilities. Telling this person she should now move house and live with family/friends would be deeply offensive and wrong headed on an individual level. Not to say that's the wrong policy because of an anecdote, but it's worth hearing the edge cases on the other side of the coin.
OK, but I don't much care if it's deeply offensive or not. It's not the duty of Government to make policy, nor the Treasury spending decisions, on what individuals may or may not find deeply offensive.
Spending on this is expected to rise to over £30bn a year by 2027/28, and we can't afford it. Almost all of us will suffer from health issues or disabilities at some point in our lives. What many of us object to is that the State should pay such people to live a more comfortable lifestyle than those working for a living and struggling to make ends meet.
I'd far rather this money was invested in defence, education and industrial strategy and lowering the tax burden on working people.
Everyone should do some form of work. And almost everyone can do some form of work.
It's why we're here.
I don't disagree with that broad sentiment Casino (some extreme cases excepted).
I became a paraplegic at 19 and was lucky enough to forge a career in IT and finance. But that was because, if I say so myself, I am reasonably bright and good at managing people and projects. Most manual jobs would be unsuitable for me - I am not going to forge a career on a building site. So if I was below average intellect, I would have struggled to find work.
Now I'm retired the issue with a lot of people I see at Citizens Advice, particularly those with mental problems, is that they are unemployable. I would not employ them, nor would you.
I have an allotment here in Flatland Central for various historic reasons.
The plotholders are a random mix of middle class types, retired folk, Polish families and a not insignificant number of dropouts and people on the margins of work/not work.
These people on the margins are probably unemployable for anything structured as they are rather chaotic and not terribly keen on authority. I don't ask but I expect some are signed off with mental issues and the like. Some of them do, however, keep quite a tidy plot and are clearly capable of some kind of work.
What they need is unstructured work which benefits society but doesn't require a daily 9-5. It would benefit them significantly.
The way welfare works this is more or less impossible without falling foul of any number of rules.
We need to get away from the stupid withdrawal rules and barriers to people doing piecemeal working.
In the case of the person on £33k benefits, I would guess that someone like that could manage 2-3 hours a day at a computer but not a full time job. But it just can't work that way. Why not?
This is why I advocate for UBI (through negative income tax) coupled with a more flexible approach to 'employment'.
Work a little bit and get a little more money on top of your UBI. Work a lot more and get a lot more money. All carrot, no stick.
Everything tapered so it avoids cliff edges and effective tax rates approaching 100% that can occur in the current system.
And a chance to scrap the mean-spirited and judgemental culture of constant 'assessment'.
I'm noting a number of attacks on the Government regarding the scrapping of the £2 bus fare.
Problem is it was time limited to January 2025 and then the budget was spent elsewhere so as with everything else it was a trap that Labour didn't pay attention to and catch...
AFAICR it was time-limited before, but was extended.
It was, I think, a good idea, and should also aid several of the government's objectives. But having said that, have there been any reports into the policy's effects? It's been going on for long enough.
I think the Govt want to extend it for reasons of good transport policy, and - as with WFP - are walking a number of tricky tightropes at once.
I'm not sure if this was leaked or pre-announced. IMO they could have done better with the comms.
It would make sense to link this to withdrawing the extra 5p per litre tax-break/subsidy for fuel which was also temporary. Obviously the Conservatives and Reform UK will go shouty-crackers, but that's assumed on any day with D in it; it's all they do.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
Thank you for all the replies to my query over the election for the POTUS
My answer would be - when the steam packets have taken the federal delegations from Hawaii and Alaska to the West coast, and then the stagecoaches have taken them on to DC. Because that was what transport was like when the stupid rules were written.
Trump is a clear and present danger to American democracy, and quite possibly the freedom of the entire planet.
Idiot.
Complacent idiot.
What's the bet that if elected Trump does/does not overturn democracy. £100 from me at your odds to say that if elected by the end of his term the US will have an election.
Oh and what odds that we face a danger to "the freedom of the entire planet".
LOL
Do we have a deal?
Do you regard Russia as a democracy?
Technically it genuinely is, but it has quirks. It's managed to distance its people from the concept of politics so well that it operates as if it wasn't. This is the characteristic of autocracies, separating the government from the people.
No. By any meaningful technical definition a democracy consists of a lot more than elections - which in any case need to be free and fair. A democracy requires the rule of law, freedom of the Press, freedom of assembly, etc.
Technically, Russia is very much not a democracy.
The tendency for people to identify democracy with elections, and only elections, is deeply mistaken.
I would argue the main characteristic of a democracy is that there is an opposition, and they can win elections.
In Russia, anyone who looks like vaguely worrying Putin, dies.
That's a very good definition, and is one of the reasons why, for example, 18th-century Britain can be regarded as a democracy, despite all the weaknesses with the restricted franchise, discrimination against Catholics, etc.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
I'd hope they'd be confident enough to stop it immediately, which is what was needed.
It should definitely result in a re-education course but to be honest I'm kind of with Stocky here in thinking the reaction is just a little OTT.
All this drinking with colleagues is a bad idea, though. Is parliament a club or a workplace?
In the report they call it:
"..a serious case of sexual misconduct.."
Now, I agree with Barty that all sexual misconduct is serious, and I don't think society as a whole takes it seriously enough. However, I think there's some hyperbole inflation with this.
If the reported case qualifies as "serious", then I'm struggling to think what would qualify as simply sexual misconduct without the serious adjective, and there would seem to be a whole range of more serious cases that are now more difficult to distinguish from this case.
Aaron Bell shouldn't have done it, but I think his actions were careless rather than calculated. That's deserving of censure, but the cases where the conduct is repeated and premeditated are much more deserving of the use of serious.
If your wife came home and told you she'd been touched up by her boss, I'm highly doubting your reply would be "don't worry love, it's not serious".
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
Not going to shout you down, more a polite disagreement that we haven't gone remotely far enough.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
I'd hope they'd be confident enough to stop it immediately, which is what was needed.
It should definitely result in a re-education course but to be honest I'm kind of with Stocky here in thinking the reaction is just a little OTT.
All this drinking with colleagues is a bad idea, though. Is parliament a club or a workplace?
In the report they call it:
"..a serious case of sexual misconduct.."
Now, I agree with Barty that all sexual misconduct is serious, and I don't think society as a whole takes it seriously enough. However, I think there's some hyperbole inflation with this.
If the reported case qualifies as "serious", then I'm struggling to think what would qualify as simply sexual misconduct without the serious adjective, and there would seem to be a whole range of more serious cases that are now more difficult to distinguish from this case.
Aaron Bell shouldn't have done it, but I think his actions were careless rather than calculated. That's deserving of censure, but the cases where the conduct is repeated and premeditated are much more deserving of the use of serious.
If your wife came home and told you she'd been touched up by her boss, I'm highly doubting your reply would be "don't worry love, it's not serious".
I don't think that's a fair reading of my comment.
I would be grateful if someone could tell me if the actual result of the POTUS will be declared on the 5th or will the winner have to wait for other factors
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
If it's close we probably won't know on the night. If it's a clear win, we probably will.
I'm noting a number of attacks on the Government regarding the scrapping of the £2 bus fare.
Problem is it was time limited to January 2025 and then the budget was spent elsewhere so as with everything else it was a trap that Labour didn't pay attention to and catch...
AFAICR it was time-limited before, but was extended.
It was, I think, a good idea, and should also aid several of the government's objectives. But having said that, have there been any reports into the policy's effects? It's been going on for long enough.
I think the Govt want to extend it for reasons of good transport policy, and - as with WFP - are walking a number of tricky tightropes at once.
I'm not sure if this was leaked or pre-announced. IMO they could have done better with the comms.
It would make sense to link this to withdrawing the extra 5p per litre tax-break/subsidy for fuel which was also temporary. Obviously the Conservatives and Reform UK will go shouty-crackers, but that's assumed on any day with D in it; it's all they do.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 1h Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
“Who decides that the workday is from 9 to 5, instead of 11 to 4? Who decides that the hemlines will be below the knee this year and short again next year? Who draws up the borders, controls the currency, handles all of the decisions that happen transparently around us?" "I don't know." "Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman, and the name is Justin. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."
Thank you for all the replies to my query over the election for the POTUS
My answer would be - when the steam packets have taken the federal delegations from Hawaii and Alaska to the West coast, and then the stagecoaches have taken them on to DC. Because that was what transport was like when the stupid rules were written.
There were no steam packets in 1789. You mean sailing ships.
BREAKING: Ex-Tory MP in case of 'brazen and drunken' sexual misconduct and 'abuse of power'
Parliament's standards watchdog has ruled that Aaron Bell, who stood down suddenly before the election, could've been suspended for a "significant period" as an MP
May I suggest, without being shouted down, that we may have gone a teensy bit over the top on this kind of stuff??
I would hope that, in this case and others like it, a personal apology would be best. If there was no contrition – or the person involved did not want to accept the apology then perhaps there would be cause for escalation. I don't know the full circumstances here but it seems Bell was contrite and misread the signals. Before anyone screams at me, I am not excusing it but wonder if there is a better way to handle this stuff?
Comments
Aaron was a regular on here before being elected and a good poster, a pity. Though he didn't help himself with his moral high ground attack on Boris over partygate with this news now
Israel has more than enough reason to dislike Iran, without bothering about Russia. They will be worried about technology exchange from Russia to Iran, though.
Four digit* loss for me if Trump wins though.
*happily with a decimal point slap bang in the middle of those four digits
A friend of mine used to get VIP invites to the races all the time, until one day it dawned on him why the bookie was so keen to buy him a lot of champagne and caviar.
My own reason for supporting aid to Ukraine is less because Putin's actions are evil (though they are), and more that we have a very clear interest in not letting Russia absorb Ukraine. If we let Putin win, then all that we're doing is teaching him to do it again, in the Baltic States, the Sulika Gap, and Moldova. And, then, all we're doing is emboldening those European leaders who wish to serve as Putin's Gauleiter.
Other efforts, e.g. the satirical Famous Five books, have been a bit weak and unfunny by comparison.
No woman should be subjected to unwanted physical advances, especially not at work (even work where alcohol is involved). If you're going to touch someone, make sure you have their clear consent.
I don't want my daughters growing up to be groped by their boss or others when they're at work in the future.
https://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/president/clintontrumpfavorability.html
So far, the late breaking news has been rather more detrimental to Trump. And his campaign provided it themselves.
This is the first post that I have read this morning, and I can only say I agree with you, but are saddened and disapppointed by this news
#DIHK warns that #German economy is set to stagnate in 2025
DIHK is the German Chamber of Commerce and Industry, and they expect the economy to contract this year as well
In their latest forecasts today, DIHK is slashing their outlook on the German economy and anticipating a 0.2% contraction for this year. As for 2025, they are expecting zero growth in the economy in what will be a third year without any real growth in GDP.
"We are not just dealing with a cyclical, but a stubborn structural crisis in Germany. We are greatly concerned about how much Germany is becoming an economic burden for Europe and can no longer fulfil its role as an economic workhorse."
Getting some money on Harris at a good price before Biden withdrew let me reduce my Trump short a bit for zero cost, so I did that. And I've got several hedges, the main ones being Harris PV over 50% laid, Trump to win NC, NV, PA.
Nevertheless if he wins I lose a chunky sum - and tbh that feels ok. Normally I'm dead eyed dick when it comes to betting but this is different. America reelecting Donald Trump despite everything is for me in 'natural disaster' territory, ie something I do not want to make money out of.
Sorry if this goes against PB rules but that's how it is.
Sorry but I am not really au fait with US politics
Thank you
States actually count slowly due to the complexity of the multiple elections, so the final official tally won't be for a couple of weeks at least. Then of course if he loses Trump will play silly buggers with the courts.
Some bookies will pay out each State based on the Associated Press making a call, others will wait until the result is formally certified by each State - which can take weeks, and still be subject to legal challenges.
Betfair are unlikely to settle anything contentious until the formal Congressional certification on January 6th, when Congress needs to decide anything still contentious (like both candidates sending Electoral College delegates from a couple of States, as happened in 2020), and might not even settle “Next President” markets until the swearing-in ceremony on January 20th.
(And they are immigrants, if only in the sense that nearly twice as many individuals of Puerto Rican descent live in mainland US, as live in Puerto Rico itself.)
They've voted twice for statehood, but so far only one of the two parties has shown any inclination at all towards granting that. They'd probably get more respect, if they had a couple of Senators in Congress.
There are a few hundred thousand on the PA electoral roll.
Unless it's a complete landslide it won't be called on the 5th or even the 6th/7th...
It's extremely intense, personal and stressful, there's a lot of alcohol around, you are somewhat idolised as an MP by those who work in it, you're away from home a lot, and there's a lot of temptation with bright attractive young people.
Yes, everyone should have discipline and you need an awful lot of it.
This is not to excuse it; but the lifestyle is not one I would want.
I'm definitely not staying up to watch this one. Never a good idea anyway because of timezones, but I don't expect to get anything either meaningful or optimistic overnight. Will just wake up the next morning when the Today programme comes on the radio announcing Trump is looking set for a comfortable win.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jiz4uo_lF_w
The most annoying part of the election coverage is the "exit poll"....BREEEEEEAAAKKKKKING NEWS.....after the break, more from the exit poll.....CNN can exclusively reveal that in our exit poll, left handed Asians who like cats voted 49/51 for Harris.
They never just give you our exit poll predicts the electoral college result as they do here with our exit poll.
The recent modest trend in the favourability ratings has been in favour of Trump. A few weeks ago the advantage Harris had was around 11 points and growing.
Hardly on the same level as some of the corruption, self-serving arrogance and sheer entitlement of the last Tory government, let's be honest about that. But it sounds like he was very careless over perceptions of power imbalance, consent, and left himself open to the risk of it being taken further. Perhaps it's near impossible to avoid the seduction of power getting to you, just a little, in Westminster.
Hope you are ok if you are reading this Aaron.
The problem is that continued unchecked this leads to the failure of society as it collapses under the weight of the obligations that have effectively been socialised.
It is impossible to acknowledge this, which itself is partially a consequence of the triumph of progressive discourse. Even the views expressed by @Casino_Royale would be hard to advance in the mainstream media, unlike the recent past, where the daily mail would act as a counter balance.
But over time it just becomes more and more obvious. Ultimately figures like Trump come along and blow it all apart.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
1h
Given that Harris supposedly needs to win by something like 4-5% on the popular vote to have a chance, it's hard to interpret this as implying anything other than a solid Trump victory at this stage.
https://x.com/andrew_lilico/status/1851211747723551090
November
Next Tuesday: they vote on the day. Those votes are counted overnight, although some things like overseas and soldier votes may take a little longer. At this point the news media declare who has won and the loser concedes. Usually.
December
If the loser does not concede then it takes a few weeks longer. Each state finishes totting up its votes and assigns its electoral votes to the person who won that state. Then in December the state representatives meet (virtually: it's not the same building) and register their votes. It is at this point that the bookmakers declare who has won if they haven't already.
January
The votes are then physically taken to Washington to be certified in the Capitol, the building in which the riots were last time. The winner is then inaugurated a few days later
Nothing major happens when PB editors go on holiday.
Fortunately my break only covers the Tory leadership result, the presidential election, fortunately I dodged the budget.
Anyhoo, I forsee the American result to be announced on Friday the 8th of November as I am having my regular working man’s lunch with JohnO that day in some place called Claridge’s.
Pause.
GOOD POINT! GETTIT! I MADE A FUNNY!
https://globalpressjournal.com/americas/puerto-rico/trash-crisis-leaves-puerto-rico-brink/
Although a bit dotty.
It should definitely result in a re-education course but to be honest I'm kind of with Stocky here in thinking the reaction is just a little OTT.
All this drinking with colleagues is a bad idea, though. Is parliament a club or a workplace?
But can we not see why women say they feel safer left alone with a bear than a man.
How would anyone on here feel if they had their bottom fondled by a man twenty years their senior, and their boss?
As men we all have a duty to do better, and be better.
Trump represents this perfectly, and in so many ways.
Work a little bit and get a little more money on top of your UBI. Work a lot more and get a lot more money. All carrot, no stick.
Everything tapered so it avoids cliff edges and effective tax rates approaching 100% that can occur in the current system.
And a chance to scrap the mean-spirited and judgemental culture of constant 'assessment'.
IN called instantly for Trump.
42 minutes later VT for Biden.
52 mins. MA; MD; DE; DC Biden / OK Trump
58 mins KY Trump
1:09 . TN Trump
1:20 mins. WV Trump
1:54 NJ Biden AR Trump
2:04 SD Trump; CT Biden
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SnUMpMs7ijQ
Note Biden was leading early in North Carolina..
The law is that they are required to make reasonable adjustments, which should be possible in those work systems. That certainly dates to EA 2010, but is likely to be part of DDA 1995.
That's a small part of the much larger issue around ignorance / lack of awareness - for which there are multidimensional causes.
Getting drunk with colleagues in this way is now pretty much always a bad idea.
In Russia, anyone who looks like vaguely worrying Putin, dies.
Since Trump & co were in power for 4 years, have hardly been silent for the subsequent 4 and the internet is awash with their gamey world view, I'm interested in what you mean by the freezing of meaningful discussion or criticism. Presumably they've been really terrible at framing their arguments in a meaningful way.
I wish commentators wouldn’t keep throwing these things casually out there.
Groping a junior is now being "very careless over perceptions of power imbalance and consent".
What a ****.
But not to forget Saturday 2nd November in the election even bigger than US election, on account it actually matters more to UK policy in long run, not some weird place miles away from us who deserve everything they are daft enough to vote for.
My mum quickly voted for Bobby Jenrick for leader, who she rates as highly as Farage and Trump. My Dad was conflicted between sitting it out, or duty to take part and having to choose one. My Dad thinks Jenrick won’t last anytime, and probably soon replaced by Cleverly, but Badenoch likely to lead the party into the next General Election. I’m telling him he might be over thinking it.
Kemi Badenoch’s conference attack on Maternity Pay and Minimum Wage as being bad for UK, got a surprising amount of attention considering she’s a nobody right now. But wearing a leadership crown, Leader of His Majesty’s Opposition saying such things will have massive coverage and real attention of voters.
Is she right about maternity pay making UK a poor and struggling unproductive country under Starmer and Labour? Because it’s not just money is it, it’s time off as well to make the whole sum? I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s lazy civil servants having babies and keeping the birth rate up, because of all the benefits they get denied to all other workers. Giving them £1 but 6 months off is going to be much more ruinous for economy than giving them £25 and just 2 weeks off - that’s maths isn’t it?
You see what I mean all those who’ve voted for Badenoch, those will be our policies at the next General Election we need to start discuss and explain them like this.
But - if Trump really has closed up in New York, New Hampshire and California, that's a dubious assumption to make. His vote in 2016 was super efficient and he needs to retain that efficiency to stand a chance.
"..a serious case of sexual misconduct.."
Now, I agree with Barty that all sexual misconduct is serious, and I don't think society as a whole takes it seriously enough. However, I think there's some hyperbole inflation with this.
If the reported case qualifies as "serious", then I'm struggling to think what would qualify as simply sexual misconduct without the serious adjective, and there would seem to be a whole range of more serious cases that are now more difficult to distinguish from this case.
Aaron Bell shouldn't have done it, but I think his actions were careless rather than calculated. That's deserving of censure, but the cases where the conduct is repeated and premeditated are much more deserving of the use of serious.
I'm not sure if this was leaked or pre-announced. IMO they could have done better with the comms.
It would make sense to link this to withdrawing the extra 5p per litre tax-break/subsidy for fuel which was also temporary. Obviously the Conservatives and Reform UK will go shouty-crackers, but that's assumed on any day with D in it; it's all they do.
when the steam packets have taken the federal delegations from Hawaii and Alaska to the West coast, and then the stagecoaches have taken them on to DC.
Because that was what transport was like when the stupid rules were written.
https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/annual-bus-statistics-year-ending-march-2023/annual-bus-statistics-year-ending-march-2023
"I don't know."
"Ah! I'm with them. Same group, different department. Think of me as a sort of middleman, and the name is Justin. Come in, sit, sit. The tea is getting cold."