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.
But yes, the point stands that the rules predate the telegraph, and the delegates used to physically turn up in Washington with horses.
It does appear to be slowly dawning on Americans, perhaps following the controversy of the last two elections and that in 2000, that their inability to hold elections and count the vote within 24 hours is something of a worldwide anomaly.
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.
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 think it absolutely is.
My point is, you may not see it as "serious" but you might change your mind if it happened to you or someone you love.
It's *very* serious for the person it's happening to. If you don't like the word serious, how about gross? As in, gross misconduct, you're sacked.
Which is what would have happened in any organisation outside of Westminster.
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.
Where there are power imbalances in the workplace it is pretty much always serious.
If this had been between two peers it would be less serious, but that one is so much senior to another makes it serious. Hence why that's been recorded as an aggravating factor.
Had this been in a bar in a social setting, rather than a work setting, it would be less serious too.
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??
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission? Clearly its clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life.
I note fertility rates are down again. Maybe because all the men are too scared to come near women?
(For abundance of clarity, the last bit is a JOKE)
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.
I think the answer to that is fairly simple: don't get drunk in work situations.
He said himself that he could not remember what he did.
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.
I think the answer to that is fairly simple: don't get drunk in work situations.
He said himself that he could not remember what he did.
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.
You are right. It wasn't a fair reading of your comment.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission? Clearly its clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life.
I note fertility rates are down again. Maybe because all the men are too scared to come near women?
(For abundance of clarity, the last bit is a JOKE)
How about you don't make a pass at someone at work when you're their boss? Or at all in the workplace, just an idea.
What might you do now? How about ask? Use words. Get consent.
We as humans have this wonderful ability to communicate and express ourselves, why not use it? When I first asked me then future wife out I did so by literally asking her out. I did not "make a pass" at her by touching her without her consent, I asked her - and she said no she just wanted to be friends and I moved on.
Later on I asked her again, and she said yes that time and the rest is history and now we have two girls of our own.
There's no circumstances where you need to touch a girls thigh or bottom at work without their consent. Or message them a picture of your d*ck out of the blue which is another common one nowadays. Just ask them, girls are quite capable of speaking too.
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.
Sounds like your Dad is wisely steering a course between you and your Mum, but will probably side with her in the end I'd say. Somewhat hopeful for Bobby J - straw polls of PBers and families have Kemi way ahead.
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.
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.
There were no steam packets in 1789. You mean sailing ships.
Nor were Hawaii and Alaska states.
Although it was stupid of the founding fathers to schedule the whole process over winter, requiring travel over mud-bound, sometimes impassable roads, through snow and over ice, and with the North Atlantic (even the coastal zones) at its worst, hurricanes 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.
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.
Once again,
It don't mean a thing if it's uniform swing. Where you get your votes, and what happens when your voters move house, is more important.
But then again, it's the sort of quality analysis we've come to expect from Lilico.
The East London Gymnastic Centre was built with lottery funding in 1997 to provide affordable coaching in a deprived part of the capital. The charity that leases the building has been told it must be out by Christmas after it was sold to a housing developer in a deal reportedly worth more than £2m. The East London School of Gymnastics, Movement and Dance signed a 14-year lease on the venue in 2020 and says the freeholder, East London Gymnastics Centre, sold the building to Linea Homes during lockdown.
Why is a public asset, still being used for its original purpose, sold off? Who are the "East London Gymnastics Centre" who had ownership of the building, and why did they sell it off to developers?
I suspect because they can. A condition on use is unlikely to have been in perpetuity either by the lottery who funded, or by Council related to change of use.
One possible route ahead would be around the Assets of Community Value processes.
I see that the charity were able to raise £1.8m.
I wonder if the budget changes will make a difference?
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
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?
Does being contrite prevent it from being gross misconduct?
Asking for forgiveness or being contrite doesn't in any way ease the fact that it was a very serious incident. "Misread the signals" my arse, verbal consent is the only signal you need and he did not have that.
Is there a better way to handle this stuff? Yes, dismiss anyone who engages in serious sexual misconduct in the workplace for gross misconduct and have a clear and unambiguous zero tolerance policy so that "misreading" does not happen in the workplace.
If this happened outside of Westminster then the perpetuator if still employed would be lucky not to have their employment terminated.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission? Clearly its clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life.
I note fertility rates are down again. Maybe because all the men are too scared to come near women?
(For abundance of clarity, the last bit is a JOKE)
How about you don't make a pass at someone at work when you're their boss? Or at all in the workplace, just an idea.
What might you do now? How about ask? Use words. Get consent.
We as humans have this wonderful ability to communicate and express ourselves, why not use it? When I first asked me then future wife out I did so by literally asking her out. I did not "make a pass" at her by touching her without her consent, I asked her - and she said no she just wanted to be friends and I moved on.
Later on I asked her again, and she said yes that time and the rest is history and now we have two girls of our own.
There's no circumstances where you need to touch a girls thigh or bottom at work without their consent. Or message them a picture of your d*ck out of the blue which is another common one nowadays. Just ask them, girls are quite capable of speaking too.
Firstly I mentioned the power imbalance. I would also note that many relationships start at work. I met my wife in a research chemistry lab.
Secondly words is not 100% of human interaction, not by a long shot. Getting together with previous girlfriends never, ever proceeded with "I say old girl, do you mind if I place my hand on your knee?". Mutual attraction tends to be fairly obvious.
The House complicates things - I would argue that Bell was not at work. Of course I don't think you should touch people at work, but I think you are being naive if you think think that touching someone shouldn't be an appropriate way of starting things. I am not talking about random people, but perhaps someone you know and are becoming increasingly close. Its certainly how I 'coupled up' back in the day.
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.
In the case of immigration it is just that the governing party have had no interest in addressing the legitimate concerns of a large part of the population. So then it leads to this stuff with Trump. It can essentially be observed as cause and effect.
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.
...
In both ancient Athens and Republican Rome (where elections weren't always held, and excluded huge proportions of the population), demokratia/Res Publica was about the rule of law and the ultimate accountability of citizens to a legislature subject to those laws. That's why I'd regard accountability as key: remember the Protestant monarchs tried Catholics before killing them, though I think Mary I didn't try Protestants.
We can get very foolishly tied up by squabbles about how "representative" a system is: the crucial questions are about accountability and the rule of law.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission? Clearly it's clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life...
As is AB, I think ?
And no, a letter is not obligatory. There are other alternatives to groping.
It's classed as "serious" presumably (?) because he was her boss. By move on, do you mean pretend it didn't happen, or get another job ? And why "FFS" ?
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.
In the case of immigration it is just that the governing party have had no interest in addressing the legitimate concerns of a large part of the population. So then it leads to this stuff with Trump. It can essentially be observed as cause and effect.
Who was the Orange twat who kiboshed Biden’s border deal that would have addressed this?
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.
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.
Nor were Hawaii and Alaska states.
Although it was stupid of the founding fathers to schedule the whole process over winter, requiring travel over mud-bound, sometimes impassable roads, through snow and over ice, and with the North Atlantic (even the coastal zones) at its worst, hurricanes apart.
The founding fathers originally had electors chosen in September.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
Tax everybody but me (nothing changes)...except the not so dirty secret of high tax / high public service places like Sweden is everybody has to pay a lot more tax for it to work, the just soak the rich doesn't get you there. If that is the direction Starmer wants to take the UK, he is going to have to convince the wider public that Richy McRich Face won't be the only one paying for 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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
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 on the basis of what we are seeing. I think a lead of about 1.5% would see her home.
Me too. And you don't need much average poll error to get there and beyond. Have the polls overcorrected for previous Trump misses and are now out the other way? Has to be very possible. In that case she wins handily. Or it really is close and she edges the PV, ekes out the rustbelt, scrapes home. Two bullish scenarios there. The big bull and the little bull. I'll be delighted with either.
TBH, big picture, if it weren't for the NV early data I'd be more than genuinely hopeful. I'd be back at cautiously optimistic or even quietly confident. My loudly confident days are in the rear view mirror though. I expected that her poll lead would be sizeable by this point, a week out. This has not happened. Trump support has more belly than I thought.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission? Clearly its clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life.
I note fertility rates are down again. Maybe because all the men are too scared to come near women?
(For abundance of clarity, the last bit is a JOKE)
How about you don't make a pass at someone at work when you're their boss? Or at all in the workplace, just an idea.
What might you do now? How about ask? Use words. Get consent.
We as humans have this wonderful ability to communicate and express ourselves, why not use it? When I first asked me then future wife out I did so by literally asking her out. I did not "make a pass" at her by touching her without her consent, I asked her - and she said no she just wanted to be friends and I moved on.
Later on I asked her again, and she said yes that time and the rest is history and now we have two girls of our own.
There's no circumstances where you need to touch a girls thigh or bottom at work without their consent. Or message them a picture of your d*ck out of the blue which is another common one nowadays. Just ask them, girls are quite capable of speaking too.
Firstly I mentioned the power imbalance. I would also note that many relationships start at work. I met my wife in a research chemistry lab.
Secondly words is not 100% of human interaction, not by a long shot. Getting together with previous girlfriends never, ever proceeded with "I say old girl, do you mind if I place my hand on your knee?". Mutual attraction tends to be fairly obvious.
The House complicates things - I would argue that Bell was not at work. Of course I don't think you should touch people at work, but I think you are being naive if you think think that touching someone shouldn't be an appropriate way of starting things. I am not talking about random people, but perhaps someone you know and are becoming increasingly close. Its certainly how I 'coupled up' back in the day.
Yes many relationships start at work, but they should start with consent.
You say that "mutual attraction tends to be fairly obvious" but far too many males* believe incorrectly that women* are attracted to them when they are not.
Which is why the only time that relationships should start in the workplace is after clear and unambiguous consent has been given.
* Not only males to women of course, but that is the most common dynamic that is problematic. Its still problematic the other way, or male to male or female to female if consent is missing.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission?
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong 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.
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.
Once again,
It don't mean a thing if it's uniform swing. Where you get your votes, and what happens when your voters move house, is more important.
But then again, it's the sort of quality analysis we've come to expect from Lilico.
Just to emphasise, for anyone who didn't read the article, most of the weighting adjustment choices discussed are entirely defensible. US political polling is hard.
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.
Sounds like your Dad is wisely steering a course between you and your Mum, but will probably side with her in the end I'd say. Somewhat hopeful for Bobby J - straw polls of PBers and families have Kemi way ahead.
There is definitely this gap in betting market and anecdotal isn’t there - it should be moments like this which bring a betting blog into its element. Could the betting market be based on leaks of the actual votes so far putting Badenoch so far ahead? It would be a pittance of a stipend based on what it brings them for the betting firms to slip someone something to feed them that info.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
One area which Democrats ought to consider for bipartisan reform - with sufficient time to implement, and safeguards for the disadvantaged - is bringing in an ID requirement for voting. If only because polling shows that (unlike eg voter purges), it has a very large majority support.
And it would possibly defuse some of the largely baseless suspicions of the voting process.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
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.
Nor were Hawaii and Alaska states.
Although it was stupid of the founding fathers to schedule the whole process over winter, requiring travel over mud-bound, sometimes impassable roads, through snow and over ice, and with the North Atlantic (even the coastal zones) at its worst, hurricanes apart.
The founding fathers originally had electors chosen in September.
Who then, after the votes had been counted and declared, and the Electoral College members notified of the result, had to travel to their respective state capitals to cast their EC votes, which in turn then had to be transported to DC (or Philadelphia initially), before the House, if necessary, broke a tie. All that happened over autumn and winter.
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 on the basis of what we are seeing. I think a lead of about 1.5% would see her home.
Me too. And you don't need much average poll error to get there and beyond. Have the polls overcorrected for previous Trump misses and are now out the other way? Has to be very possible. In that case she wins handily. Or it really is close and she edges the PV, ekes out the rustbelt, scrapes home. Two bullish scenarios there. The big bull and the little bull. I'll be delighted with either.
TBH, big picture, if it weren't for the NV early data I'd be more than genuinely hopeful. I'd be back at cautiously optimistic or even quietly confident. My loudly confident days are in the rear view mirror though. I expected that her poll lead would be sizeable by this point, a week out. This has not happened. Trump support has more belly than I thought.
@kinabalu where are you with the Big Short on Trump?
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
People favour taxes on people other than themselves.
That is hardly a shock is it ?
It's not. But it indicates the scale of the task in sorting out the country's finances. Most people are quite unrealistic in their views of what's needed.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
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.
Yep. There was a somewhat similar in terms of placing yourself in a position where you do strange things with a drug driver who drove up the pavement "because I had no choice" * on an exit from a roundabout in Hawkinge, Folkestone, and hit someone who he sent flying through the air. He was telling himself fairytales.
By that time he had made choices to:
- Take drugs the night before. - Drive whilst 2x the drug limit. - Driven at high speed onto the roundabout, close behind another vehicle. - Gone round the corner at speed where there were not clear sightlines. - Driven where he could not stop in the distance he could see. - Driven up the pavement when the car he was tailgating had to slow down, rather than into the car in front.
And in this case the victim ended up flying over the top of the car, had 6 weeks in hospital, now has metal plates in his pelvis and wrist, and cannot sleep with his wife because he needs a special adjustable bed.
In the words of Conservative politicians, it is all about taking personal responsibility for yourself.
* I don't believe this; I think it quite likely that he went up the pavement regularly to shortcut the traffic queue that is there.
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.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
France has long had tax breaks for dependent children.
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
One area which Democrats ought to consider for bipartisan reform - with sufficient time to implement, and safeguards for the disadvantaged - is bringing in an ID requirement for voting. If only because polling shows that (unlike eg voter purges), it has a very large majority support.
And it would possibly defuse some of the largely baseless suspicions of the voting process.
It's doubtful that the Federal Government or Congress has the power to do that; these are matters reserved to the States. And to the extent that it is contested, the SCOTUS would undoubtedly rule in favour of states' rights as currently constituted.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
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.
Actual final result, not declared until 6 Jan when the electoral votes are opened & declared by the sitting VP, in Congress, hence the 6 Jan 2021 riot.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
People favour taxes on people other than themselves.
That is hardly a shock is it ?
It's not. But it indicates the scale of the task in sorting out the country's finances. Most people are quite unrealistic in their views of what's needed.
Is it “unrealistic” or at end of tether and worried right words to use, after historic credit squeeze, where food and bills went up, but incomes by not nearly enough?
Take just few groups as example, pensioners having winter fuel payments cut, and those on wrong end of 2 child benefit cap, and those paying massive rents for what they are getting worried about homelessness, people genuinely suffering whilst we all know there’s money out there Tories and Labour won’t touch?
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
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?
I thank my lucky stars that I am married and not having to navigate the crazed world of initiating new relationships/sexual encounters. When I was dating decades ago you might make a pass at someone. If they didn't want it that was the end of it. What do you have to do now - send in a letter asking for permission?
More usually it's a text message these days.
In my young days we often met the opposite sex at dances: “You dancing?” “You asking?” “Yeah” “OK” And the pair of you swayed away, one male hand round the female’s waist. When the music stopped the two of you either went on chatting or you didn’t.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
You've clearly never worked in the porn industry.
To be fair that's one industry where they probably do have the consent not only given but given in writing in advance.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
I feel sorry for him because I don't think he is a serial offender (if he is that changes everything), he almost certainly did not mean anything by it and has no doubt caused his family immense distress, at a minimum. I don't feel sorry for him in terms of the process he has been through and the punishment he would have got had he still been an MP. Those are well deserved.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
I feel sorry for him because Westminister is a f***ing strange place to work with odd hours and multiple other issues.
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.
There is a via media though, and it's an admission of failure imo to say that we have to go to utilitarian-world.
I disagree with your various "impossibles". I think it is perfectly possible.
We have, for example, systems of accepting or not accepting particular medications or clinical interventions in the NHS - determined on a version of societal cost/benefit analysis.
Consider that NICE have just rejected implementing use of a Alzheimer's drug on the basis of poor value:
A new pioneering Alzheimer's drug has been rejected for widespread use in the NHS in England.
The announcement comes as the UK's medicines regulator said that donanemab could be licensed for use in the UK.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
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 on the basis of what we are seeing. I think a lead of about 1.5% would see her home.
I think that's probably a tiny bit on the optimistic side, but I think anything above 2% and she becomes the favorite.
And it is perfectly possible - of course - that Harris outperforms in WI, PA, MI while underperforming in TX, FL, CA and the sunbelt, in which case she might grab the presidency with a deficit in the national vote.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Italians are also much more religious and Roman Catholic than we are. Meloni also now subsiding mothers
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.
Actual final result, not declared until 6 Jan when the electoral votes are opened & declared by the sitting VP, in Congress, hence the 6 Jan 2021 riot.
Even then, Congress still has to verify the results sent in - and there is the possibility of competing lists being sent in by partisan state officials, or of Congress simply refusing to endorse results it doesn't like wherever it can find cause to (most likely scenario: Republican lawmakers attempting to throw out a very tight Dem state win where there are 'questions' about enough ballots to make the difference, so denying Harris the EC votes she'd need to win)
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
People favour taxes on people other than themselves.
That is hardly a shock is it ?
Seriously, what are the point of polls like this?
Completely priced in.
If Reeves wanted a populist left budget she would raise the additional rate of income tax to 90% and 70s levels and increase corporation tax too. Yet no tax rises for anyone else.
Not that that would be great for attracting investment and would lead to a brain drain
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
I feel sorry for him because Westminister is a f***ing strange place to work with odd hours and multiple other issues.
It's strange because we allow it to be strange The history and tradition has been allowed to get in the way. The very building itself is unsuitable to the task of government. A new purpose built building just outside Loughborough with an attached accommodation block would do the trick.🤡
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 on the basis of what we are seeing. I think a lead of about 1.5% would see her home.
Me too. And you don't need much average poll error to get there and beyond. Have the polls overcorrected for previous Trump misses and are now out the other way? Has to be very possible. In that case she wins handily. Or it really is close and she edges the PV, ekes out the rustbelt, scrapes home. Two bullish scenarios there. The big bull and the little bull. I'll be delighted with either.
TBH, big picture, if it weren't for the NV early data I'd be more than genuinely hopeful. I'd be back at cautiously optimistic or even quietly confident. My loudly confident days are in the rear view mirror though. I expected that her poll lead would be sizeable by this point, a week out. This has not happened. Trump support has more belly than I thought.
@kinabalu where are you with the Big Short on Trump?
How much do you stand to lose?
Thanks.
Ooo it depends on margins, specific states and PV split. I've diversified and partially hedged.
My best result net net from a Trump win is down about £800. My worst is more than double that.
The good news is my upside (if Harris wins) beats that.
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
I think that you could easily make the case that Mauritius is a better functioning democracy than the USA to whom we have rented Diego Garcia in order to "protect democracy".
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
You've clearly never worked in the porn industry.
How did you guess?
Candidly, it has been your lack of knowledge about fluffers.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
I feel sorry for him because Westminister is a f***ing strange place to work with odd hours and multiple other issues.
It's strange because we allow it to be strange The history and tradition has been allowed to get in the way. The very building itself is unsuitable to the task of government. A new purpose built building just outside Loughborough with an attached accommodation block would do the trick.🤡
Remember my plan is to move Parliament to Bradford just to see how quickly HS2 and NPR got built...
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
You've clearly never worked in the porn industry.
How did you guess?
You’d never expect a plumber to turn up in ten minutes of calling him.
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.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Simply make personal income tax allowances transferable, and from birth for dependent children, so a family of 4 living together have 4 personal allowances to set off against income.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
You've clearly never worked in the porn industry.
How did you guess?
Candidly, it has been your lack of knowledge about fluffers.
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 on the basis of what we are seeing. I think a lead of about 1.5% would see her home.
Me too. And you don't need much average poll error to get there and beyond. Have the polls overcorrected for previous Trump misses and are now out the other way? Has to be very possible. In that case she wins handily. Or it really is close and she edges the PV, ekes out the rustbelt, scrapes home. Two bullish scenarios there. The big bull and the little bull. I'll be delighted with either.
TBH, big picture, if it weren't for the NV early data I'd be more than genuinely hopeful. I'd be back at cautiously optimistic or even quietly confident. My loudly confident days are in the rear view mirror though. I expected that her poll lead would be sizeable by this point, a week out. This has not happened. Trump support has more belly than I thought.
@kinabalu where are you with the Big Short on Trump?
How much do you stand to lose?
Thanks.
Ooo it depends on margins, specific states and PV split. I've diversified and partially hedged.
My best result net net from a Trump win is down about £800. My worst is more than double that.
The good news is my upside (if Harris wins) beats that.
In a workplace situation you just don't start touching up women, let alone ones much younger than and more junior to you. Of course it's serious if you do it. Imagine being the woman. You don't know it's just mild flirtation. You just know some pissed-up, older bloke in a position of significant authority is touching you up. You have no idea what's coming next but you know what might be.
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Why do you feel sorry for him? No one forced him to get pissed up at work and grope a woman.
I feel sorry for him because Westminister is a f***ing strange place to work with odd hours and multiple other issues.
It's strange because we allow it to be strange The history and tradition has been allowed to get in the way. The very building itself is unsuitable to the task of government. A new purpose built building just outside Loughborough with an attached accommodation block would do the trick.🤡
Good news is that July 4 must have got rid of a decent number of Bufton Rees-Tuftons for whom the nonsense was part of the point. Bad news is that the place is still falling down and won't get any cheaper to sort.
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
One area which Democrats ought to consider for bipartisan reform - with sufficient time to implement, and safeguards for the disadvantaged - is bringing in an ID requirement for voting. If only because polling shows that (unlike eg voter purges), it has a very large majority support.
And it would possibly defuse some of the largely baseless suspicions of the voting process.
It's doubtful that the Federal Government or Congress has the power to do that; these are matters reserved to the States. And to the extent that it is contested, the SCOTUS would undoubtedly rule in favour of states' rights as currently constituted.
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.
There are five stages to a democratic process. Undermining any one undermines the whole.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
One area which Democrats ought to consider for bipartisan reform - with sufficient time to implement, and safeguards for the disadvantaged - is bringing in an ID requirement for voting. If only because polling shows that (unlike eg voter purges), it has a very large majority support.
And it would possibly defuse some of the largely baseless suspicions of the voting process.
It's doubtful that the Federal Government or Congress has the power to do that; these are matters reserved to the States. And to the extent that it is contested, the SCOTUS would undoubtedly rule in favour of states' rights as currently constituted.
No, but Democratic leaders could back bipartisan agreement along these lines in contested states. Something to consider for the future.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Simply make personal income tax allowances transferable, and from birth for dependent children, so a family of 4 living together have 4 personal allowances to set off against income.
Costs far too much which is why it was scrapped so long ago...
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.
Actual final result, not declared until 6 Jan when the electoral votes are opened & declared by the sitting VP, in Congress, hence the 6 Jan 2021 riot.
Even then, Congress still has to verify the results sent in - and there is the possibility of competing lists being sent in by partisan state officials, or of Congress simply refusing to endorse results it doesn't like wherever it can find cause to (most likely scenario: Republican lawmakers attempting to throw out a very tight Dem state win where there are 'questions' about enough ballots to make the difference, so denying Harris the EC votes she'd need to win)
If the Dems win they should overhaul the electoral system because all this crap is just a recipe for chaos.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Simply make personal income tax allowances transferable, and from birth for dependent children, so a family of 4 living together have 4 personal allowances to set off against income.
Costs far too much which is why it was scrapped so long ago...
The cost depends on what level the allowance is set. It could be fiscally neutral if reduced appropriately.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
People favour taxes on people other than themselves.
That is hardly a shock is it ?
It's not. But it indicates the scale of the task in sorting out the country's finances. Most people are quite unrealistic in their views of what's needed.
Is it “unrealistic” or at end of tether and worried right words to use, after historic credit squeeze, where food and bills went up, but incomes by not nearly enough?
Take just few groups as example, pensioners having winter fuel payments cut, and those on wrong end of 2 child benefit cap, and those paying massive rents for what they are getting worried about homelessness, people genuinely suffering whilst we all know there’s money out there Tories and Labour won’t touch?
All of that might be true - but it doesn't change the fact that our finances aren't going to get sorted by taxing just the richest. That's necessary, of course, but not sufficient.
And we need economic growth as part if the solution.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Simply make personal income tax allowances transferable, and from birth for dependent children, so a family of 4 living together have 4 personal allowances to set off against income.
Costs far too much which is why it was scrapped so long ago...
The cost depends on what level the allowance is set. It could be fiscally neutral if reduced appropriately.
It would only be fiscally neutral if some people end up paying a lot more. And those who do - or think they will - won't half shout about 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
If it's close we probably won't know on the night. If it's a clear win, we probably will.
Actual final result, not declared until 6 Jan when the electoral votes are opened & declared by the sitting VP, in Congress, hence the 6 Jan 2021 riot.
Even then, Congress still has to verify the results sent in - and there is the possibility of competing lists being sent in by partisan state officials, or of Congress simply refusing to endorse results it doesn't like wherever it can find cause to (most likely scenario: Republican lawmakers attempting to throw out a very tight Dem state win where there are 'questions' about enough ballots to make the difference, so denying Harris the EC votes she'd need to win)
If the Dems win they should overhaul the electoral system because all this crap is just a recipe for chaos.
And how do you propose they do that, by themselves?
Actually, there may be a way but if it's viable for them then it's also viable for Trump, Musk and co to rewrite the constitution to their own liking.
Follow What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82% Income tax on rich: 75% Corporation tax: 59% Capital gains: 43% (net +10) Inheritance tax: 29% NI: 22% Income tax on all workers: 15% VAT: 11%
People favour taxes on people other than themselves.
That is hardly a shock is it ?
It's not. But it indicates the scale of the task in sorting out the country's finances. Most people are quite unrealistic in their views of what's needed.
Is it “unrealistic” or at end of tether and worried right words to use, after historic credit squeeze, where food and bills went up, but incomes by not nearly enough?
Take just few groups as example, pensioners having winter fuel payments cut, and those on wrong end of 2 child benefit cap, and those paying massive rents for what they are getting worried about homelessness, people genuinely suffering whilst we all know there’s money out there Tories and Labour won’t touch?
All of that might be true - but it doesn't change the fact that our finances aren't going to get sorted by taxing just the richest. That's necessary, of course, but not sufficient.
And we need economic growth as part if the solution.
It's a hard problem.
Lady Thatcher windfall taxed Oil Companies and Banks to help households through similar household budget crisis in early eighties. In last few years big banks, oil & gas, electricity generation, supermarkets, and shipping companies profits have leapt up.
Anyone think corporate profiteering during coronavirus crisis and inflation spike, didn’t happen at all?
So why are Labour not touching the two child benefit cap in first instance, and taking away heating and eating money from old aged pensions in the first instance, but not going after all that corporate profiteering in the first instance, just like “the much more socialist” Lady Thatcher is historically proven to have done?
Where it’s been said it’s voters with unrealistic view of things right now, maybe it’s the political parties with unrealistic view of things right now, is my reply to people saying the hard hit voters have unrealistic view of the situation.
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.
Sounds like your Dad is wisely steering a course between you and your Mum, but will probably side with her in the end I'd say. Somewhat hopeful for Bobby J - straw polls of PBers and families have Kemi way ahead.
There is definitely this gap in betting market and anecdotal isn’t there - it should be moments like this which bring a betting blog into its element. Could the betting market be based on leaks of the actual votes so far putting Badenoch so far ahead? It would be a pittance of a stipend based on what it brings them for the betting firms to slip someone something to feed them that info.
I only ever bet fun little amounts but I have placed a small bet on Jenrick - seems like a good bet under the circs.
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.
In a recent thread we discussed the falling fertility rate and its long-term implications.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
I think Italy have tax holidays to have babies.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
Lower tax rates if you have children make a huge amount of sense:
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers" - They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning? - They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Simply make personal income tax allowances transferable, and from birth for dependent children, so a family of 4 living together have 4 personal allowances to set off against income.
Costs far too much which is why it was scrapped so long ago...
The cost depends on what level the allowance is set. It could be fiscally neutral if reduced appropriately.
It would only be fiscally neutral if some people end up paying a lot more. And those who do - or think they will - won't half shout about it.
To be fair to the Gov't you do effectively have a higher personal allowance if you've got nursery age children.*
Comments
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_date_of_admission_to_the_Union
But yes, the point stands that the rules predate the telegraph, and the delegates used to physically turn up in Washington with horses.
It does appear to be slowly dawning on Americans, perhaps following the controversy of the last two elections and that in 2000, that their inability to hold elections and count the vote within 24 hours is something of a worldwide anomaly.
My point is, you may not see it as "serious" but you might change your mind if it happened to you or someone you love.
It's *very* serious for the person it's happening to. If you don't like the word serious, how about gross? As in, gross misconduct, you're sacked.
Which is what would have happened in any organisation outside of Westminster.
If this had been between two peers it would be less serious, but that one is so much senior to another makes it serious. Hence why that's been recorded as an aggravating factor.
Had this been in a bar in a social setting, rather than a work setting, it would be less serious too.
Groping a subordinate at work is serious, yes.
Clearly its clouded if there is a power imbalance, and clearly drink has played a role here. But FFS slap his hand, tell him no and move on with your life.
I note fertility rates are down again. Maybe because all the men are too scared to come near women?
(For abundance of clarity, the last bit is a JOKE)
He said himself that he could not remember what he did.
He said himself that he could not remember what he did.
Makes sense to take a new one there as it's one of the better tracks for overtaking.
What might you do now? How about ask? Use words. Get consent.
We as humans have this wonderful ability to communicate and express ourselves, why not use it? When I first asked me then future wife out I did so by literally asking her out. I did not "make a pass" at her by touching her without her consent, I asked her - and she said no she just wanted to be friends and I moved on.
Later on I asked her again, and she said yes that time and the rest is history and now we have two girls of our own.
There's no circumstances where you need to touch a girls thigh or bottom at work without their consent. Or message them a picture of your d*ck out of the blue which is another common one nowadays. Just ask them, girls are quite capable of speaking too.
Poll results depend on pollster choices as much as voters’ decisions
Simple changes in how to weight a single poll can move the Harris-Trump margin 8 points.
https://goodauthority.org/news/election-poll-vote2024-data-pollster-choices-weighting/
But then again he does write for the Telegraph ?
I am shocked.
It don't mean a thing if it's uniform swing. Where you get your votes, and what happens when your voters move house, is more important.
But then again, it's the sort of quality analysis we've come to expect from Lilico.
One possible route ahead would be around the Assets of Community Value processes.
I see that the charity were able to raise £1.8m.
I wonder if the budget changes will make a difference?
YouGov
@yougov.bsky.social
Follow
What taxes would Britons be willing to see increased in order to improve public services?
Income tax on super-rich: 82%
Income tax on rich: 75%
Corporation tax: 59%
Capital gains: 43% (net +10)
Inheritance tax: 29%
NI: 22%
Income tax on all workers: 15%
VAT: 11%
https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.bsky.social/post/3l7nitwczfy2n
Asking for forgiveness or being contrite doesn't in any way ease the fact that it was a very serious incident. "Misread the signals" my arse, verbal consent is the only signal you need and he did not have that.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
Is there a better way to handle this stuff? Yes, dismiss anyone who engages in serious sexual misconduct in the workplace for gross misconduct and have a clear and unambiguous zero tolerance policy so that "misreading" does not happen in the workplace.
If this happened outside of Westminster then the perpetuator if still employed would be lucky not to have their employment terminated.
1) To never drink
2) To not become an MP
Secondly words is not 100% of human interaction, not by a long shot. Getting together with previous girlfriends never, ever proceeded with "I say old girl, do you mind if I place my hand on your knee?". Mutual attraction tends to be fairly obvious.
The House complicates things - I would argue that Bell was not at work. Of course I don't think you should touch people at work, but I think you are being naive if you think think that touching someone shouldn't be an appropriate way of starting things. I am not talking about random people, but perhaps someone you know and are becoming increasingly close. Its certainly how I 'coupled up' back in the day.
We can get very foolishly tied up by squabbles about how "representative" a system is: the crucial questions are about accountability and the rule of law.
And no, a letter is not obligatory. There are other alternatives to groping.
It's classed as "serious" presumably (?) because he was her boss.
By move on, do you mean pretend it didn't happen, or get another job ? And why "FFS" ?
You defend the indefensible.
Starting from here (1.44 rate), to propose policies seemingly designed to reduce births further from working families would be utter madness from a long-term economic perspective. The direction of travel should be do more to help the parents of young children and try to maintain a more sustainable birth rate.
I also suspect it's a politically unpopular policy, even on the right. I wouldn't be surprised if Badenoch quietly drops it, if elected.
TBH, big picture, if it weren't for the NV early data I'd be more than genuinely hopeful. I'd be back at cautiously optimistic or even quietly confident. My loudly confident days are in the rear view mirror though. I expected that her poll lead would be sizeable by this point, a week out. This has not happened. Trump support has more belly than I thought.
You say that "mutual attraction tends to be fairly obvious" but far too many males* believe incorrectly that women* are attracted to them when they are not.
Which is why the only time that relationships should start in the workplace is after clear and unambiguous consent has been given.
* Not only males to women of course, but that is the most common dynamic that is problematic. Its still problematic the other way, or male to male or female to female if consent is missing.
1. Registration. Can voters, candidates and parties register without undue restrictions, and are accurate records then kept and used?
2. Campaign. Can candidates and parties campaign in a free and fair environment, with reasonable opportunities given in the media and directly to the public (allowing for relative size, support etc) for candidates to contact the electorate? Is the state apparatus neutral in the process?
3. Voting. Can voters cast their ballots easily, securely and on as close to an equal basis as is possible in differing circumstances? Is the system free from fraud and abuse of process and power? Is the electoral system fair?
4. The count. Are votes cast counted accurately and in a timely manner, with the results declared matching the votes cast?
5. Transition. Is the result of the election / vote implemented?
I'd say that all five of these points are not where they should be in the US, Trump has tried to directly overturn at least the final two, and has supporters in place who have, or have sought to, undermine the first three.
There is no binary democracy / dictatorship (unless at least one of the five stages is not implemented with even the most token lip service); more normal is a sliding scale from the one to the other. And America is sliding, quickly, the wrong way.
US political polling is hard.
Simple changes in how to weight a single poll can move the Harris-Trump margin 8 points.
https://goodauthority.org/news/election-poll-vote2024-data-pollster-choices-weighting/
That is hardly a shock is it ?
Even though I disagree with him politically, I think Aaron is generally a good guy and I feel very sorry for him that this has happened. But he not only crossed a red line but one that had flashing lights and huge warning signs above it.
Completely priced in.
If only because polling shows that (unlike eg voter purges), it has a very large majority support.
And it would possibly defuse some of the largely baseless suspicions of the voting process.
How much do you stand to lose?
Thanks.
But it indicates the scale of the task in sorting out the country's finances. Most people are quite unrealistic in their views of what's needed.
There is a difference in culture though, meaning policies should be different to match. They are Latins, whilst what’s stiff with us are upper lips.
By that time he had made choices to:
- Take drugs the night before.
- Drive whilst 2x the drug limit.
- Driven at high speed onto the roundabout, close behind another vehicle.
- Gone round the corner at speed where there were not clear sightlines.
- Driven where he could not stop in the distance he could see.
- Driven up the pavement when the car he was tailgating had to slow down, rather than into the car in front.
And in this case the victim ended up flying over the top of the car, had 6 weeks in hospital, now has metal plates in his pelvis and wrist, and cannot sleep with his wife because he needs a special adjustable bed.
In the words of Conservative politicians, it is all about taking personal responsibility for yourself.
* I don't believe this; I think it quite likely that he went up the pavement regularly to shortcut the traffic queue that is there.
Take just few groups as example, pensioners having winter fuel payments cut, and those on wrong end of 2 child benefit cap, and those paying massive rents for what they are getting worried about homelessness, people genuinely suffering whilst we all know there’s money out there Tories and Labour won’t touch?
(Biden won by 7 points.)
Nebraska 2nd Presidential Polling:
Harris (D): 53%
Trump (R): 41%
NYT/Siena / Oct 26, 2024 / n=1194
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1850894036967571550
“You dancing?”
“You asking?”
“Yeah”
“OK”
And the pair of you swayed away, one male hand round the female’s waist. When the music stopped the two of you either went on chatting or you didn’t.
Could be pivotal as Ne02 + Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan gets Harris to 270.
Even if Trumps wins Arizona, Nevada, Georgia and North Carolina
I disagree with your various "impossibles". I think it is perfectly possible.
We have, for example, systems of accepting or not accepting particular medications or clinical interventions in the NHS - determined on a version of societal cost/benefit analysis.
Consider that NICE have just rejected implementing use of a Alzheimer's drug on the basis of poor value:
A new pioneering Alzheimer's drug has been rejected for widespread use in the NHS in England.
The announcement comes as the UK's medicines regulator said that donanemab could be licensed for use in the UK.
However, the health spending watchdog, the National Institute of Health and Care Excellence (NICE), said that it "does not currently demonstrate value for the NHS".
https://news.sky.com/story/pioneering-alzheimers-drug-rejected-for-widespread-use-in-nhs-in-england-13239378
And it is perfectly possible - of course - that Harris outperforms in WI, PA, MI while underperforming in TX, FL, CA and the sunbelt, in which case she might grab the presidency with a deficit in the national vote.
- They reward working parents so hopefully neutralise complaints about "lazy benefits scroungers"
- They are easy to understand and budget for as a family - who doesn't like a bit of tax planning?
- They reflect the fact that parents have much higher costs than people without children
Give parents of children up to age 11, say, either a higher threshold for higher rate taxation, or a 5% reduction in all tax rates.
Extend the tax benefit to grandparents and others who have primary caring responsibility for a child.
Not that that would be great for attracting investment and would lead to a brain drain
My best result net net from a Trump win is down about £800. My worst is more than double that.
The good news is my upside (if Harris wins) beats that.
So, you know.🤞
https://x.com/dennis_k_g/status/1851091745297338581
Faithless electors don't exist in the constitution
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-mp-parliament-old-traditions-uk-fresh-labour-government-westminister/
Good news is that July 4 must have got rid of a decent number of Bufton Rees-Tuftons for whom the nonsense was part of the point. Bad news is that the place is still falling down and won't get any cheaper to sort.
https://www.politico.eu/article/parliament-is-falling-down-mps-prepare-to-order-a-patch-up-job/
Good job that the national psyche is totally chill at spending what's needed to do a long-term capital spend properly, eh?
Something to consider for the future.
Harris 47% Trump 47% Oliver 1% Stein 1%
https://amgreatness.com/2024/10/28/pennsylvania-headed-for-a-photo-finish-new-american-greatness-polling/
That's necessary, of course, but not sufficient.
And we need economic growth as part if the solution.
It's a hard problem.
Actually, there may be a way but if it's viable for them then it's also viable for Trump, Musk and co to rewrite the constitution to their own liking.
Anyone think corporate profiteering during coronavirus crisis and inflation spike, didn’t happen at all?
So why are Labour not touching the two child benefit cap in first instance, and taking away heating and eating money from old aged pensions in the first instance, but not going after all that corporate profiteering in the first instance, just like “the much more socialist” Lady Thatcher is historically proven to have done?
Where it’s been said it’s voters with unrealistic view of things right now, maybe it’s the political parties with unrealistic view of things right now, is my reply to people saying the hard hit voters have unrealistic view of the situation.
It’s not an all in it together situation, is it?
* Big 100k cliff edge.
NEW THREAD