The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
The Waspi ombudsman report was issued in March.
As usual Sunak & Hunt kicked it into the long grass as they concentrated on salting the earth rather than actually governing.
At least Labour have made the right (and difficult) decision.
If the main parties had any backbone they would address the issue of the triple lock jointly.
The state pension is now just over 30pc of average earnings it is bigger than at any point since 1968, and additionally auto enrolment is now 12 years old (or 7 years for smaller employers).
The triple lock should move to a CPI / RPI only increase from say 2030.
It's unaffordable unless the working population fancy chipping in more tax.
The triple lock should move to the middle of the three components, rather than the highest.
That's not a bad idea but it needs a catchy name. Maybe the triple stabiliser or the fairness formula.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
The Waspi ombudsman report was issued in March.
As usual Sunak & Hunt kicked it into the long grass as they concentrated on salting the earth rather than actually governing.
At least Labour have made the right (and difficult) decision.
If the main parties had any backbone they would address the issue of the triple lock jointly.
The state pension is now just over 30pc of average earnings it is bigger than at any point since 1968, and additionally auto enrolment is now 12 years old (or 7 years for smaller employers).
The triple lock should move to a CPI / RPI only increase from say 2030.
It's unaffordable unless the working population fancy chipping in more tax.
The triple lock should move to the middle of the three components, rather than the highest.
That's not a bad idea but it needs a catchy name. Maybe the triple stabiliser or the fairness formula.
Extend it - the quadruple lock. Sounds great, right? Quadruple is better than triple. Government protecting pensions….
The extra “lock” is to 100% of the income tax allowance. Maximum. So if the income tax allowance doesn’t go up, neither does the pension.
Still the better-off pundits rail against the triple lock but have nothing to say against higher rate tax relief on pension contributions.
ShoeZone (sure that's where all PBers get their footwear) have announced that due to the Labour budget, they will now have to close a number of stores as they will become unviable. This will become standard reasoning for businesses to use, truthful or not.
More people who will be told directly by their employers that the reason they are losing their job/not having pay rise, is because of the Labour budget.
Reeves' jobs tax will have the unintended consequence of reducing the perceived shortage of workers and bringing down the immigration figures.
MP Brian Leishman tells me’s “appalled” and “horrified” that no redress will be offered.
“It made me think of issues like Grenfell, Hillsborough and Orgreave. I think today is another one of those historic injustices that are a stain on society.
“The WASPI women have my ongoing solidarity. It’s important that many other Labour colleagues who feel in a similar boat show our collective view. That’s a fight I am up for and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those affected.”
Rachael Maskell, who also resisted cut to winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners, also says: “Many of the poorest pensioners are WASPI women. So clearly, I am concerned about the human cost of this policy. Labour must be on the side of the poorest pensioners.”
I went out with a friend and had a Christmas dinner last night. I was mildly surprised to see a Yorkshire Pudding was included with the meal.
When did Yorkshire pud's start becoming a "thing" within the traditional Christmas dinner?
I'd say it depends what your dinner is. If it is beef, then you would expect it. Turkey is a modern tradition - bloody Victorians again.
I'm probably on gammon this year, if I don't find another partridge in the freezer.
It could have been broadened by things such as Toby Carvery Christmas Dinners, where their Yorkshires fill a big chunk of your plate with air rather than something that costs them money.
Available in a Toby Carvery for their breakfast cafeteria service. Bacon, eggs, sausages, beans tinned tomatoes, mushrooms, assorted potato and Yorkshire pudding.
No wonder the nation is dead on its arse.
Ew, who wants Yorkshire pudding for breakfast?
If you are having sauages etc why not, its all 'dinner' food.
That said i dont go for it at Toby's.
Well, I like toad-in-the-hole but not really for breakfast...
I have had beef stew for breakfast before, very good on those cold winter mornings.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Agree - feels unlikely to me. Older voters won't change their mind on reunification. And younger voters may look at it more hard-headedly and think... do I really want to lose the NHS/UK subsidies?
The Republic IMO would not benefit much either. You inherit a poorer region where even in the best case scenario a substantial minority don't want to be part of your country.
The NHS will, surely, be the challenge to the uniters. That was where Cummings was so smart to tie it into the Brexit referendum, and why the SNP attempted to co-opt it - "NHSYes" - during IndyRef. Unless they have an answer to that I can't see how they could win a border poll.
"The NHS" is itself classic Unionist propaganda, as indeed you imply. Different health services in the four home nations. The 'model' may be similar, but it's not a unified service at all. There'd be no splitting if NI left the UK.
Still, great to see Unionists extolling the virtues of the free-at-point-of-use NI over the dreadful public-private HSE. Perhaps they can be persuaded to come out to their gardens for a nightly round of applause on its behalf.
MP Brian Leishman tells me’s “appalled” and “horrified” that no redress will be offered.
“It made me think of issues like Grenfell, Hillsborough and Orgreave. I think today is another one of those historic injustices that are a stain on society.
“The WASPI women have my ongoing solidarity. It’s important that many other Labour colleagues who feel in a similar boat show our collective view. That’s a fight I am up for and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those affected.”
Rachael Maskell, who also resisted cut to winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners, also says: “Many of the poorest pensioners are WASPI women. So clearly, I am concerned about the human cost of this policy. Labour must be on the side of the poorest pensioners.”
This government is getting a reputation for harming pensioners. There's even a novelty Christmas record:
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
He has a long history of suing or threatening to sue people for little reason. Not alone among rich people of course.
Though it sounds like he's considerably more suitable for the position than many who pursue a political career, probably why his constituents voted for him over Will Tanner.
MP Brian Leishman tells me’s “appalled” and “horrified” that no redress will be offered.
“It made me think of issues like Grenfell, Hillsborough and Orgreave. I think today is another one of those historic injustices that are a stain on society.
“The WASPI women have my ongoing solidarity. It’s important that many other Labour colleagues who feel in a similar boat show our collective view. That’s a fight I am up for and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those affected.”
Rachael Maskell, who also resisted cut to winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners, also says: “Many of the poorest pensioners are WASPI women. So clearly, I am concerned about the human cost of this policy. Labour must be on the side of the poorest pensioners.”
Utterly barmy. No 'redress' will be offered because it was a reasonable bloody decision.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
U-turning can be a good thing in politics, senior politicians should do it more often as their rhetoric will probably have been wrong more often than not. However, when it happens they will reasonably face tough questions about why, which need good answers, so u-turns are to be cautiously not automatically welcomed.
Only robots and childish ideologues never change their minds.
I know a lot more about Waspi specifics now than I did a few weeks ago
On that basis I have changed my mind.
The main reason is that I believe a lot of the most vociferous would have just had the max 3k and then just have wanted more and more.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
Utter bollocks. If Labour had thrown money at them you'd be cheering it from the rooftops.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
U-turning can be a good thing in politics, senior politicians should do it more often as their rhetoric will probably have been wrong more often than not. However, when it happens they will reasonably face tough questions about why, which need good answers, so u-turns are to be cautiously not automatically welcomed.
Only robots and childish ideologues never change their minds.
Indeed but when a partisan party shill u-turns just because their party has u-turned that does not show anything other than political expediency. Certainly not principle.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
He has a long history of suing or threatening to sue people for little reason. Not alone among rich people of course.
Maxwell spent his life doing that.. and there are many other examples.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
U-turning can be a good thing in politics, senior politicians should do it more often as their rhetoric will probably have been wrong more often than not. However, when it happens they will reasonably face tough questions about why, which need good answers, so u-turns are to be cautiously not automatically welcomed.
Only robots and childish ideologues never change their minds.
I know a lot more about Waspi specifics now than I did a few weeks ago
On that basis I have changed my mind.
The main reason is that I believe a lot of the most vociferous would have just had the max 3k and then just have wanted more and more.
I don't remember receiving notifications from the DWP when my future retirement date moved on nearly 2 years. I was aware though as I made it a point to be au fait with pension rules and payments, especially as big changes were occurring with the teacher pension scheme at the time and also the phasing out of contracting out which happened later.
Though it sounds like he's considerably more suitable for the position than many who pursue a political career, probably why his constituents voted for him over Will Tanner.
Sounds like the perfect MP tbh - a career working in the NHS, helps out with charities and the local synagogue; older but not retired for eons prior to moving into the house. Clearly not out for personal political advancement.
The way the WASPI story gets reported is still very odd to me. Talk of being 'hit' by pension changes alongside a lot of uncritical acceptance of their own presentation of grievance has always given the impression to me that the narrative they have been wronged is rarely challenged. Whether someone does support their campaign or not there has always been an alternative position, but its been rarely emphasised.
This being the 2000s i expect many more legal legal challenges, sonehow.
The waspi case is based on the theory that people too ignorant/stupid to notice all the stories and workplace discussions about the rise in pension ages would have understood it if they had received a letter in 1994.
For that matter I don't remember getting any letters explaining that my state pension age is no longer 65 yet I've been aware that it wouldn't be that for decades.
A classic case of 'always more consultation needed'? See it with NIMBYism all the time, but it has wider applicability. You're never going to get everyone to notice something, or appreciate its significance if you do.
I recall an Alistair Meeks header on the subject which I think laid out all the notification of the change in detail.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
He has a long history of suing or threatening to sue people for little reason. Not alone among rich people of course.
Of course. The disappointment is that there are approximately zero conservatives in the US objecting to it.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
Debate online about the failures in the Sara Sharif case. Also the anonymity afforded to the Judge and various others involved in the case. Unsurprisingly people putting two and two together and coming to the conclusion that the authorities were more concerned with cultural sensitivities than child safeguarding. They may be wrong in this but where is the rebuttal? Sky News going with 'the real issue is misogyny' doesn't really answer that. Yet again it seems the authorities are happy to create a vacuum for speculation to fill and then complain about 'misinformation' later on.
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you are a Labour Party Troll who would justify any policy if the great one deemed it necessary, including judicial murder
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Who is one left to side with? Those who take a hypocritical stance on free speech or those who don't even pretend to care for it?
Debate online about the failures in the Sara Sharif case. Also the anonymity afforded to the Judge and various others involved in the case. Unsurprisingly people putting two and two together and coming to the conclusion that the authorities were more concerned with cultural sensitivities than child safeguarding. They may be wrong in this but where is the rebuttal? Sky News going with 'the real issue is misogyny' doesn't really answer that. Yet again it seems the authorities are happy to create a vacuum for speculation to fill and then complain about 'misinformation' later on.
Anna Botting was pushing the "overworked" line on the papers last night and Henry Hill was having none of it.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Though it sounds like he's considerably more suitable for the position than many who pursue a political career, probably why his constituents voted for him over Will Tanner.
Will Tanner is a good policy wonk and grew up in and lives in that part of Suffolk though and on current polls will almost certainly win Bury St Edmunds next time even if Labour is re elected nationally
ShoeZone (sure that's where all PBers get their footwear) have announced that due to the Labour budget, they will now have to close a number of stores as they will become unviable. This will become standard reasoning for businesses to use, truthful or not.
More people who will be told directly by their employers that the reason they are losing their job/not having pay rise, is because of the Labour budget.
Reeves' jobs tax will have the unintended consequence of reducing the perceived shortage of workers and bringing down the immigration figures.
I have checked. Loakes and it’s outlet on Strutton Ground are ok.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
He has a long history of suing or threatening to sue people for little reason. Not alone among rich people of course.
Of course. The disappointment is that there are approximately zero conservatives in the US objecting to it.
They were fully captured by Trumpism over conservatism before he was re-elected, no chance of talking out against him now.
It's scraping the barrel, but there does appear to be a bit of a fallow year ahead for political bettors. Are there any significant contests coming?
Germany in February, Canada and Oz later in the year.
Norway in September. Big test for Milei with elections in Argentina in October. Albania in May.
Big excitement for Liechtenstein on 9 Feb. Could Brigitte Haas become the country’s first female head of government? But there’s voter dissatisfaction with the current grand coalition.
Aren't we due 4 elections in Germany, and another 4 in France?
Debate online about the failures in the Sara Sharif case. Also the anonymity afforded to the Judge and various others involved in the case. Unsurprisingly people putting two and two together and coming to the conclusion that the authorities were more concerned with cultural sensitivities than child safeguarding. They may be wrong in this but where is the rebuttal? Sky News going with 'the real issue is misogyny' doesn't really answer that. Yet again it seems the authorities are happy to create a vacuum for speculation to fill and then complain about 'misinformation' later on.
Anna Botting was pushing the "overworked" line on the papers last night and Henry Hill was having none of it.
I think the whole home-schooling line is a red herring too. The abuse was happening whilst she was in mainstream education, and clearly she should have been not been with either parent regardless of where she was receiving an education (or not). Home schooling is a separate debate to my mind. Massive failures from Surrey county council and the judiciary here.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Nah. Lose the Scots and NI, and then scrap all devolution and local Gvt.
Isnt Ireland meant to be a lot richer than the UK thesedays? On paper at the very least? Presumably that might help shift attitudes in time too.
The Republic of Ireland is now more Thatcherite economically than the UK, with much lower corporation tax and a lower top rate of income tax for example and also more religious than the UK, unlike the British now most Irish still call themselves Christian.
However it has no NHS (or NI equivalent) as has been mentioned unlike the UK
Isnt Ireland meant to be a lot richer than the UK thesedays? On paper at the very least? Presumably that might help shift attitudes in time too.
GDP at purchasing power parity per capita in dollars is:
Ireland $127,750 United Kingdom $62,574
But the GDP figures for Ireland are distorted because it has a relatively small population and is a relatively large tax haven.
Looking at average weekly earnings then:
Ireland €955.49 United Kingdom £706
The current exchange rate is about €1.20, so average weekly earnings are 12.8% higher in Ireland than in the UK. A lot less than double. But are living costs higher in Ireland? I think they are, they're certainly nearly the highest in the whole EU in Ireland, but I haven't found comparable statistics.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
U-turning can be a good thing in politics, senior politicians should do it more often as their rhetoric will probably have been wrong more often than not. However, when it happens they will reasonably face tough questions about why, which need good answers, so u-turns are to be cautiously not automatically welcomed.
Only robots and childish ideologues never change their minds.
I know a lot more about Waspi specifics now than I did a few weeks ago
On that basis I have changed my mind.
The main reason is that I believe a lot of the most vociferous would have just had the max 3k and then just have wanted more and more.
So you spouted off and offered an opinion, and talked down to people who knew more about it than you, when you had no knowledge of the subject.
What bollocks. You're a partisan shill who backtracked to support party policy.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Would England tolerate 'devomax' for Scotland without a substantial reduction in Scottish influence in Westminster?
Sir Keir hopes the economy will be significantly better by this time next year.
It it is, his figures will improve significantly.
If not, start betting on Mr Streeting.
I think we all agree with Keir on this. We all hope the economy will improve significantly.
I don’t think it will though. Too many global headwinds.
If you want the UK economy to improve then jacking up National Insurance as a tax on jobs was precisely the wrong way to go about it.
We should be rebalancing the taxation system so that unearned and earning incomes are treated the same, which would help fill in black holes, not make the system worse by taxing employment even more while leaving unearned incomes untouched.
The Budget was a horrendous mistake.
Labour seem to think that reorganising local government is more important than reorganising council tax.
Sorting the boundaries out must come first, so core cities can capture the tax base of those for whom they provide services.
I do love the word 'capture'.
The voters are less likely to enjoy having their taxes captured and spent elsewhere.
It’s not “elsewhere” - that’s the point. Parts of Manchester and Newcastle city centre are not under the control of their city council. Nottingham’s boundary is batshit crazy. Places that are part and parcel of the cities are not paying towards it services. This isn’t complicated.
Manchester City Council controls all of Manchester City Centre. I'm guessing the point you are making is that Salford City Centre isn't controlled by Manchester City Council. Which is true, but doesn't seem to be holding either party back.
Ditto Newcastle/Gateshead.
If you have been to Gateshead recently you will know how untrue that is
This pictures shows two city centres according to @Cookie...
That strikes me as a well intentioned idea that will have unhelpful consequences (like the ICC).
The “usual” settlement agreement includes an anti-disparagement clause. That makes sense - part of the purpose of a settlement is to end matters. But if one side is free to go around and complain endlessly about the matter then that means the settlement has little benefit to the other party - so reduces the likelihood of a negotiated outcome.
As always, it’s the ABUSE of the NDA that’s the problem, not an NDA per se, thats the issue
Well done Sir Keir. Stand firm against this stupid WASPI
Agreed. It was not an easy decision, especially against a well funded, very vocal, lobby, but he has done exactly the right thing and it is good to see them defending it today as well.
I think the timing, so close to Xmas, was smart as well.
For a govt that has been politically inept maybe, just maybe, they are starting to get their act together.
Still more to do on pensions. Get the triple lock sorted
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Who is one left to side with? Those who take a hypocritical stance on free speech or those who don't even pretend to care for it?
I don't particularly see anyone not caring for free speech. It's just that people see the definitions and limits of free speech differently.
Debate online about the failures in the Sara Sharif case. Also the anonymity afforded to the Judge and various others involved in the case. Unsurprisingly people putting two and two together and coming to the conclusion that the authorities were more concerned with cultural sensitivities than child safeguarding. They may be wrong in this but where is the rebuttal? Sky News going with 'the real issue is misogyny' doesn't really answer that. Yet again it seems the authorities are happy to create a vacuum for speculation to fill and then complain about 'misinformation' later on.
Anna Botting was pushing the "overworked" line on the papers last night and Henry Hill was having none of it.
“ ..it is estimated that social workers spend between 12% and 20% of their time working directly with children and families, the remainder being spend on administrative tasks”
Inflation increase news today, and FPT discussions.
I hesitate to say something that could sound mad when quoted, but from a macroeconomic perspective I think there is good inflation and bad inflation. We are in a period of “good inflation” currently.
In 2022-3 the price of - primarily - goods went up because of international commodity price rises, but wages stayed stagnant. That sort of inflation directly hits the bottom line of the economy and household spending power.
In 2024 inflation, such as it is, is happening with a backdrop of stable commodity prices, slightly falling import prices (due to a strong pound) and rising domestic services and wage growth. That means at least some of the inflation going into people’s pockets, which makes their mortgages relatively smaller.
That's actual nonsense. The inflation we've seen is because businesses are padding margins in order to get ahead of the £40bn tax rises that are being pushed on them from next year. That's not "good" inflation, in fact it's the very worst kind of inflation because prices are increasing to increase company margin which will do absolutely zero for the real economy.
In your desperation to defend a poor decision in July you've contorted yourself into a position of saying inflation is good and tax rises on businesses and wealth creation is good. Maybe it's time to admit you made an error in not supporting the Tories in July so you won't have to take increasingly idiotic positions to support it?
That's actual nonsense.
Average weekly earnings for all employees in Great Britain increased by 5.2% to Oct 2024
In the context of 2.6% inflation, that is good, despite your dribble.
That was before the budget. Let's see how quickly employers have slammed the brakes on pay rises afterwards. We've already seen goods prices rise in November and now we're heading into a prolonged pay freeze for at least 2-3 years as companies claw back the £40bn tax rise.
Isnt Ireland meant to be a lot richer than the UK thesedays? On paper at the very least? Presumably that might help shift attitudes in time too.
Quite heavily reliant on foreign direct investment generated by low tax - particularly from US. Election of Trump not good news. And, of course, unlike with Uncle Joe there is no sentimental attachment to the emerald isle.
Trump does own a golf course in County Clare.
Interestingly, someone has recently put up a fair bit of money to have Trump's golf course (and its hotel) heavily advertised on Irish radio, which is a bit unusual.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Who is one left to side with? Those who take a hypocritical stance on free speech or those who don't even pretend to care for it?
I don't particularly see anyone not caring for free speech. It's just that people see the definitions and limits of free speech differently.
Can't see Trump having much chance to win this one with the US' various laws. I'd go pro se and not settle if I was Selzer on this one; I certainly wouldn't be if he raised a libel action here.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, including addressing a number of things the previous Government ran away from, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
U-turning can be a good thing in politics, senior politicians should do it more often as their rhetoric will probably have been wrong more often than not. However, when it happens they will reasonably face tough questions about why, which need good answers, so u-turns are to be cautiously not automatically welcomed.
Only robots and childish ideologues never change their minds.
I know a lot more about Waspi specifics now than I did a few weeks ago
On that basis I have changed my mind.
The main reason is that I believe a lot of the most vociferous would have just had the max 3k and then just have wanted more and more.
So you spouted off and offered an opinion, and talked down to people who knew more about it than you, when you had no knowledge of the subject.
I mean, is that actually that unusual in political discourse?
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
The WASPI issue is once again showing up the flaws in Starmer’s tactics in opposition (complain about everything, worry about the detail after you win).
On the core topic the government are correct to hold firm.
But of course we now have a situation where all the key players in the government have tweets/photos/statements suggesting they would do something completely different.
I am a broken record on this, I admit, but that 2024 campaign and the period before it will just keep on causing problems for Labour all through this parliament. We exist in a weird political state where voters endorsed Labour (certainly in seat count) but were asked to write a blank cheque and now feel disappointed/taken for granted.
It will be like the Lib Dems with tuition fees but on steroids. Just naive politics from Labour.
Yes and no. I don't think Labour in their wildest dreams would have imagined quite how badly the Tory government would implode and quite how easy their election into power would be. They would be thinking that they needed to be all things to all men women to get a sniff of power. Principles are great, but you cannot do anything in opposition.
I have never thought that the Waspi women had a case. Equality cuts both ways and they had ample warning. No one received a letter on their retirement day telling them "sorry, no pension for 5 more years for you".
Completely agreed re the WASPI issue. I hope Starmer and co don’t cave to backbenchers on this - apparently there’s a lot of fury on the Labour side about the way this was announced and it being yet another lightning rod for public dissent.
It is of course right that you can’t do anything in opposition but I think what is happening to Labour now is starting to show that by the same token you can’t just oppose everything and try to appeal to everyone and then row back once you’ve got your feet under the table. It is very cynical politics and l don’t think they got the balance right.
Labour do have the makings of a consistent policy position, which is to redistribute wealth and income from pensioners to working age people. The trouble is that's undermined by the 1. triple lock and 2. the NI changes.
Maybe. But the fact they didn’t campaign on that (indeed in certain circumstances suggesting the very opposite) is becoming a problem for them.
Labour did not commit to paying Waspi women in the manifesto nor the budget.
Who moaned loudest at both of those times, the Waspi women.
The front page woman on one of the red tops is a teacher who retired at 58 expecting a state pension at 60.
I have to ask the question..
What fucking remote uninhabited jungle had she been teaching in for the previous 10 to 15 years.
People have to take personal responsibility for their actions and mot always seek to blame someone else.
You absolute bloody hypocrite.
A week or so ago you were saying they deserved money. Now you have reversed simply as Labour have made the policy clear whereas the rest of us have had a consistent position.
A week ago "the anger is fully justified", "halve the overseas aid budget to fund the WASPI women"
What a bloody hypocrite.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you got something wrong.
Sometimes it's adult to admit you are a Labour Party Troll who would justify any policy if the great one deemed it necessary, including judicial murder
There are a few anti-Labour trolls on here tbf. Bit of counterweight doesn't hurt.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
Is anyone paying her any attention ? She seems somewhat anonymous at the moment,
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
I expect Badenoch will try and make some mischief on the WASPI issue at PMQs but it will be dented by the fact that the automatic response will be “will you compensate them?” and the answer will be no.
So up will pop Farage in the next few days who will probably then say he’ll compensate them and steal a march.
That strikes me as a well intentioned idea that will have unhelpful consequences (like the ICC).
The “usual” settlement agreement includes an anti-disparagement clause. That makes sense - part of the purpose of a settlement is to end matters. But if one side is free to go around and complain endlessly about the matter then that means the settlement has little benefit to the other party - so reduces the likelihood of a negotiated outcome.
As always, it’s the ABUSE of the NDA that’s the problem, not an NDA per se, thats the issue
It comes down to should the rich and powerful be above the law or not? Lets face it that is what NDAs to cover criminality are for.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, including addressing a number of things the previous Government ran away from, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
Her track record is to raise something irrelevant or else mix one relevant question in with a pile of nonsense. She's a dud.
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
The system is not rigged, it is that the system is inevitably shaped by demographics and the public are unwilling to accept the consequences of that so flail around from one snake oil salesman to the next.
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
This interested me, so I went to look.
Nasal influenza vaccines have been a thing in the UK since 2013.
Children who get the flu vaccine are either clinically at-risk groups, or in households of who are immunocompromised.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, including addressing a number of things the previous Government ran away from, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
I expect Badenoch will try and make some mischief on the WASPI issue at PMQs but it will be dented by the fact that the automatic response will be “will you compensate them?” and the answer will be no.
So up will pop Farage in the next few days who will probably then say he’ll compensate them and steal a march.
"How many WASPI women will freeze to death this winter because of Labour cuts?"
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Would England tolerate 'devomax' for Scotland without a substantial reduction in Scottish influence in Westminster?
SNP MPs to be fair to them already don't vote on English only laws, it could be legislated that all Scottish MPs can no longer vote on laws that affect England only.
Though as I said as part of the devolution in England agenda more of what Westminster does on English health and education and justice and welfare and transport etc could be devolved to the new unitary authorities, Mayors and the London Assembly too
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
Turkey is a rubbish meat for Christmas dinner?
I think she'll be getting stung, but if she goes for that one it may steal the SNP thunder. They seem to be making a lot of noise for a group with only slightly more MPs than Reform.
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The nasal spray flu vaccine contains gemstone derived from pigs. So, also not suitable for vegans, if a vegan is that strict (who am I kidding with the "if"?)
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
Problem is we've heard all this before, and it was the usual grumbles. Like with supposed decline in the top two party share of the vote, but in 2017 it rose back to 82% (obviously in 2024 it was right back down again).
Maybe this time is different, there's an argument to be made there certainly (persistent Tory weakness, Reform potential, Labour bleeding support), but some of it is wishcasting.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Nah. Lose the Scots and NI, and then scrap all devolution and local Gvt.
In which case 'England' would likely end up back to Wessex and the home counties in a few decades
That strikes me as a well intentioned idea that will have unhelpful consequences (like the ICC).
The “usual” settlement agreement includes an anti-disparagement clause. That makes sense - part of the purpose of a settlement is to end matters. But if one side is free to go around and complain endlessly about the matter then that means the settlement has little benefit to the other party - so reduces the likelihood of a negotiated outcome.
As always, it’s the ABUSE of the NDA that’s the problem, not an NDA per se, thats the issue
It comes down to should the rich and powerful be above the law or not?
I assume no one would say they should be, except maybe Musk fanboys, but we do put plenty of effort into making them effectively so, so more believe it than would admit it.
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The nasal spray flu vaccine contains gemstone derived from pigs. So, also not suitable for vegans, if a vegan is that strict (who am I kidding with the "if"?)
Our primary school sent around an email on the flu vaccinations last week with a sentence saying that the Muslim Council (or some such organisation) had approved use of vaccines containing pig products.
Annoyingly there was some form we were supposed to fill out which we never saw (probably because our daughter never brought it home) so she didn't get the vaccine, and nor did most of her classmates for similar reasons. She hates nasal sprays though, actually prefers needles.
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
The system is not rigged, it is that the system is inevitably shaped by demographics and the public are unwilling to accept the consequences of that so flail around from one snake oil salesman to the next.
What they're, rightly upset about in this case, is the hypocrisy of the politicians who pledged to support them then reneging on that when in power. It is the right decision. PHSO simply caved to a well funded and vocal lobby when their own report admitted the govt had no legal obligation to inform people of changes.
As for the Tories criticising Labour for this decision when they would have done the same they are just as bad, if not worse, for not lancing the boil when in office.
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
Problem is we've heard all this before, and it was the usual grumbles. Like with supposed decline in the top two party share of the vote, but in 2017 it rose back to 82% (obviously in 2024 it was right back down again).
Maybe this time is different, there's an argument to be made there certainly (persistent Tory weakness, Reform potential, Labour bleeding support), but some of it is wishcasting.
I don’t think there’s any inevitability in the decline of the “top 2” party vote, but I do think there is an inevitability that at some point the public are going to be driven towards a political distruptor, whoever it is and whichever party they lead. That person may or may not be Nigel Farage - he carries a lot of baggage. But there will come a point where that centrist cyclical nature of politics breaks, IMHO. The public are growing increasingly angry with the status quo.
Though it sounds like he's considerably more suitable for the position than many who pursue a political career, probably why his constituents voted for him over Will Tanner.
Yes. There are several unexpected new MPs who have already begun to make a really positive impact on the House of Commons.
I know it is in the British DNA to quickly condemn anyone showing any kind of skill or leadership, but there are several new MPs that make you proud to be British, and they come from across the political spectrum.
Then there´s Nigel Farage, who hardly ever goes to Parliament for non financial reasons, and who is willing to sell this country to any foreigner he meets... Russian, South African...
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Who is one left to side with? Those who take a hypocritical stance on free speech or those who don't even pretend to care for it?
I don't particularly see anyone not caring for free speech. It's just that people see the definitions and limits of free speech differently.
Can't see Trump having much chance to win this one with the US' various laws. I'd go pro se and not settle if I was Selzer on this one; I certainly wouldn't be if he raised a libel action here.
The point isn't to win - it's to cost the defenders of the action a lot of money defending it. In his current position, Trump has far deeper pockets than he did only a year ago. And access to effectively unlimited funds.
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Would England tolerate 'devomax' for Scotland without a substantial reduction in Scottish influence in Westminster?
SNP MPs to be fair to them already don't vote on English only laws, it could be legislated that all Scottish MPs can no longer vote on laws that affect England only.
Though as I said as part of the devolution in England agenda more of what Westminster does on English health and education and justice and welfare and transport etc could be devolved to the new unitary authorities, Mayors and the London Assembly too
The Tories did legislate that way and then changed their minds and repealed that legislation some years later [edit] - obviously to trap not so much the SNP but Slab and SLD MPs (remember student fees).
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
Though it sounds like he's considerably more suitable for the position than many who pursue a political career, probably why his constituents voted for him over Will Tanner.
Yes. There are several unexpected new MPs who have already begun to make a really positive impact on the House of Commons.
I know it is in the British DNA to quickly condemn anyone showing any kind of skill or leadership, but there are several new MPs that make you proud to be British, and they come from across the political spectrum.
Then there´s Nigel Farage, who hardly ever goes to Parliament for non financial reasons, and who is willing to sell this country to any foreigner he meets... Russian, South African...
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
Turkey is a rubbish meat for Christmas dinner?
Agree. Boring meat. We will be having duck, as we did last year. The 3 years before that I made a Beef Wellington. A lot of hassle on Christmas Eve, but easy on the day
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
The system is not rigged, it is that the system is inevitably shaped by demographics and the public are unwilling to accept the consequences of that so flail around from one snake oil salesman to the next.
What they're, rightly upset about in this case, is the hypocrisy of the politicians who pledged to support them then reneging on that when in power. It is the right decision. PHSO simply caved to a well funded and vocal lobby when their own report admitted the govt had no legal obligation to inform people of changes.
As for the Tories criticising Labour for this decision when they would have done the same they are just as bad, if not worse, for not lancing the boil when in office.
Politicians who speak honestly don't get elected. The inevitable outcome is politicians in charge are at best misleading in their promises.
But that is our choice as voters, and on us, more than it is on politicians. Politicians cannot be honest and get into power unless we voters change first.
Where are all the conservative defenders of free speech condemning this assault on press freedom ?
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer? https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
Who is one left to side with? Those who take a hypocritical stance on free speech or those who don't even pretend to care for it?
I don't particularly see anyone not caring for free speech. It's just that people see the definitions and limits of free speech differently.
Can't see Trump having much chance to win this one with the US' various laws. I'd go pro se and not settle if I was Selzer on this one; I certainly wouldn't be if he raised a libel action here.
The point isn't to win - it's to cost the defenders of the action a lot of money defending it. In his current position, Trump has far deeper pockets than he did only a year ago. And access to effectively unlimited funds.
Bukwark podcast yesterday covered this, but mainly around the ABC News capitulation.
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The nasal spray flu vaccine contains gemstone derived from pigs. So, also not suitable for vegans, if a vegan is that strict (who am I kidding with the "if"?)
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The nasal spray flu vaccine contains gemstone derived from pigs. So, also not suitable for vegans, if a vegan is that strict (who am I kidding with the "if"?)
Some will be that strict, depending on how strongly they follow their principles (some JWs and blood transfusions?), but most will compromise and aim for porcine material to be made unnecessary over time.
We used to have the same thing with porcine-based insulins, which up to the 1980s were the only ones available - so for Type 1 Diabetics it was take it or die, but we now have excellent human insulins which have been improving since then so the porcine versions are only needed by a small % of diabetics for medical (eg allergy to the human ones) reasons or by choice.
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
Turkey is a rubbish meat for Christmas dinner?
Another sound policy announcement, two in a row!
Perhaps Christmas dinner is the meal where she treats herself to a sandwich?
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Would England tolerate 'devomax' for Scotland without a substantial reduction in Scottish influence in Westminster?
SNP MPs to be fair to them already don't vote on English only laws, it could be legislated that all Scottish MPs can no longer vote on laws that affect England only.
Though as I said as part of the devolution in England agenda more of what Westminster does on English health and education and justice and welfare and transport etc could be devolved to the new unitary authorities, Mayors and the London Assembly too
The Tories did legislate that way and then changed their minds and repealed that legislation some years later [edit] - obviously to trap not so much the SNP but Slab and SLD MPs (remember student fees).
I wonder if anyone has actually taken the 2025 bet? If so, a very benevolent gesture towards the gambling firm’s next Christmas do.
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
No it wouldn't, Welsh nationalists would soon also be seeking independence and there is also the North and South divide in England and London and provinces divide too which would be exacerbated if the UK broke up.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Would England tolerate 'devomax' for Scotland without a substantial reduction in Scottish influence in Westminster?
Not a good idea. Plenty of areas even then where Scottish constituencies have a right to equal representation, remember.
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
Problem is we've heard all this before, and it was the usual grumbles. Like with supposed decline in the top two party share of the vote, but in 2017 it rose back to 82% (obviously in 2024 it was right back down again).
Maybe this time is different, there's an argument to be made there certainly (persistent Tory weakness, Reform potential, Labour bleeding support), but some of it is wishcasting.
I don’t think there’s any inevitability in the decline of the “top 2” party vote, but I do think there is an inevitability that at some point the public are going to be driven towards a political distruptor, whoever it is and whichever party they lead. That person may or may not be Nigel Farage - he carries a lot of baggage. But there will come a point where that centrist cyclical nature of politics breaks, IMHO. The public are growing increasingly angry with the status quo.
Even Corbyn got 40% of the vote in 2017 and he was hard left not centrist, Farage only needs 30% if the Labour government and Tories stay under 30%.
Though Corbyn had a united left behind him, so Farage would need to eat much more into the Tory vote
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
The nasal spray flu vaccine contains gemstone derived from pigs. So, also not suitable for vegans, if a vegan is that strict (who am I kidding with the "if"?)
Gelatine!
I was wondering if you were referring to synthetic rubies etc. used to make the integrated circuit chips ... but didn't think you were of that persuasion!
I'm sticking with my fairly consistent (so far) line that the Starmer Govt are to date getting the strategic decisions about right and moving carefully as the situation requires, but need some PR Rottweilers.
Sue Grey is in need of a job.
Gray.
G-R-A-Y.
Um, quite clearly I meant this person I definitely did not just randomly Google.
Comments
Call it the Mean Annual Pension settlement.
https://x.com/breeallegretti/status/1869295305948070338
Major backlash from Labour MPs over decision to give no compensation to Waspi women.
MP Brian Leishman tells me’s “appalled” and “horrified” that no redress will be offered.
“It made me think of issues like Grenfell, Hillsborough and Orgreave. I think today is another one of those historic injustices that are a stain on society.
“The WASPI women have my ongoing solidarity. It’s important that many other Labour colleagues who feel in a similar boat show our collective view. That’s a fight I am up for and we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with those affected.”
Rachael Maskell, who also resisted cut to winter fuel allowance for millions of pensioners, also says: “Many of the poorest pensioners are WASPI women. So clearly, I am concerned about the human cost of this policy. Labour must be on the side of the poorest pensioners.”
Experts are saying Trump's latest lawsuit – against Gannett, the Des Moines Register, and Ann Selzer – is a legal long shot. But is the purpose to win, or to make his perceived opponents suffer?
https://x.com/brianstelter/status/1869107675369476588
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQrvmY5s2mo
On that basis I have changed my mind.
The main reason is that I believe a lot of the most vociferous would have just had the max 3k and then just have wanted more and more.
You're a shill. Nothing more nothing less.
The disappointment is that there are approximately zero conservatives in the US objecting to it.
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/ukhsa-recommends-simple-steps-to-avoid-winter-bugs-this-festive-season
Wash your hands!
This part puzzled me: School-aged children in reception through to year 11 are also eligible for a free flu vaccine, delivered as a nasal spray in schools or as an injection for those with medical or faith exemptions.
First that we are vaccinating children against flu, second that someone has invented nasal spray vaccinations, but third, which forward-thinking religion centuries ago banned vaccinations up the nose but accepts them through a needle?
I mean, the RoI would have to actually want to take the North (in practice rather than in theory) for a start…
I stick with my proposal. The Scots have to take it with them on independence. England and Wales would be a much happier marriage than the current foursome.
Devomax for Scotland and more devolution within England to come closer to what the Senedd and Stormont have would be better
Plus the 6th and 7th Republics
Massive failures from Surrey county council and the judiciary here.
However it has no NHS (or NI equivalent) as has been mentioned unlike the UK
Ireland $127,750
United Kingdom $62,574
But the GDP figures for Ireland are distorted because it has a relatively small population and is a relatively large tax haven.
Looking at average weekly earnings then:
Ireland €955.49
United Kingdom £706
The current exchange rate is about €1.20, so average weekly earnings are 12.8% higher in Ireland than in the UK. A lot less than double. But are living costs higher in Ireland? I think they are, they're certainly nearly the highest in the whole EU in Ireland, but I haven't found comparable statistics.
What bollocks. You're a partisan shill who backtracked to support party policy.
Nothing more nothing less.
Such integrity.
Designed by Matilda, aged 5, Burnhope Primary School
https://www.getintonewcastle.co.uk/things-to-do/get-to-know-businesses-along-the-quayside
As does this one...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Bridge,_Greater_Manchester#/media/File:N2_Trinity_Bridge_manchester.jpg
Funny old world!
The “usual” settlement agreement includes an anti-disparagement clause. That makes sense - part of the purpose of a settlement is to end matters. But if one side is free to go around and complain endlessly about the matter then that means the settlement has little benefit to the other party - so reduces the likelihood of a negotiated outcome.
As always, it’s the ABUSE of the NDA that’s the problem, not an NDA per se, thats the issue
Equality
When do we want it
Well, not at the moment when its pensions.
https://archive.is/20241215125920/https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-appeals-court-judge-rescinds-retirement-after-trumps-win-2024-12-15/
Maga are now going Gaga.
I think the timing, so close to Xmas, was smart as well.
For a govt that has been politically inept maybe, just maybe, they are starting to get their act together.
Still more to do on pensions. Get the triple lock sorted
“ ..it is estimated that social workers spend between 12% and 20% of their time working directly with children and families, the remainder being spend on administrative tasks”
Process State.
Interestingly, someone has recently put up a fair bit of money to have Trump's golf course (and its hotel) heavily advertised on Irish radio, which is a bit unusual.
"It was an epic, historic miscalculation to build our prosperity on the promise of eternal friendly relations with Putin."
https://x.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1869275050983243955
Nails it.
Shame that he strongly supported the closure of Germany's nuclear power plants, though.
They are not being driven by short-termist demands on the whole, or the rattling noise the Opposition are occasionally making when they try to escape from the dustbin of history, which is the correct way.
I wonder what the Kemikaze line will be tomorrow?
So up will pop Farage in the next few days who will probably then say he’ll compensate them and steal a march.
Luke Tryl
@luketryl.bsky.social
Am like a broken record on this, but every conversation with the public shows there is no more slack when it comes to trust in politics. It’s not the usual grumbles, but a sense the whole system is rigged, and the consequence is that people are turning away from the mainstream
https://bsky.app/profile/luketryl.bsky.social/post/3ldl6lpnv2k2z
Nasal influenza vaccines have been a thing in the UK since 2013.
Children who get the flu vaccine are either clinically at-risk groups, or in households of who are immunocompromised.
Though as I said as part of the devolution in England agenda more of what Westminster does on English health and education and justice and welfare and transport etc could be devolved to the new unitary authorities, Mayors and the London Assembly too
Maybe this time is different, there's an argument to be made there certainly (persistent Tory weakness, Reform potential, Labour bleeding support), but some of it is wishcasting.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cr56v10v6yro
Kemi Badenoch's early polling figures make for grim reading for the Tories, writes
@PME_Politics
Looks like a PM in waiting: 13%
Doing well as leader of the Conservative party: 20%
https://x.com/YouGov/status/1869344889856729402
Annoyingly there was some form we were supposed to fill out which we never saw (probably because our daughter never brought it home) so she didn't get the vaccine, and nor did most of her classmates for similar reasons. She hates nasal sprays though, actually prefers needles.
As for the Tories criticising Labour for this decision when they would have done the same they are just as bad, if not worse, for not lancing the boil when in office.
I know it is in the British DNA to quickly condemn anyone showing any kind of skill or leadership, but there are several new MPs that make you proud to be British, and they come from across the political spectrum.
Then there´s Nigel Farage, who hardly ever goes to Parliament for non financial reasons, and who is willing to sell this country to any foreigner he meets... Russian, South African...
In his current position, Trump has far deeper pockets than he did only a year ago. And access to effectively unlimited funds.
G-R-A-Y.
I have disliked her ever since she told Dev Griffin on Celebrity Masterchef she wouldn't feed his food to her dog.
We were hoping someone like Andi Oliver would get it.
The inevitable outcome is politicians in charge are at best misleading in their promises.
But that is our choice as voters, and on us, more than it is on politicians. Politicians cannot be honest and get into power unless we voters change first.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOunMmbTJfg
We used to have the same thing with porcine-based insulins, which up to the 1980s were the only ones available - so for Type 1 Diabetics it was take it or die, but we now have excellent human insulins which have been improving since then so the porcine versions are only needed by a small % of diabetics for medical (eg allergy to the human ones) reasons or by choice.
Though Corbyn had a united left behind him, so Farage would need to eat much more into the Tory vote