I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
The PM should certainly be on “you never need work again and need not be thinking about cash so you won’t be corrupt” money. I think we sort of assume they will get that via books and lecture tours, but we should just do it.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Perhaps we should cut MPs pay back to what it was in the 1970s and 80s then?
Since the 90s MPs pay has increased dramatically in real terms, it was much lower in real terms in the 70s and 80s.
That's a false comparison because the issue is comparative salaries. In the 70s and 80s an MPs salary was much higher than other career options. Today an MPs salary is below a lot of career options. The comparative growth of MPs pay has been much lower than pay for people in top industries. It has definitely lead to a dearth of talent across all parties, not just Labour and the Tories.
No it wasn't, even in the 70s and 80s QCs and merchant and investment bankers and surgeons and company directors earnt more than MPs. Plus of course CEOs pay has grown far higher than the average wage earners even than it has relative to MPs pay since then
But last year I hired senior analysts and engineers for £120-150k, you only need 5-7 years experience to get those bigger salaries, not a lifetime as you might to be a medical consultant, QC or CEO.
The bar for higher salaries is lower today than it's ever been and it makes the idea of being an MP unappealing. As someone who has been asked twice to run, once as a paper candidate and once for selection in a marginal seat both times I told those who wanted to nominate me that I couldn't take the pay cut and I didn't want to be a social worker.
It was always the case, and should be the case, that being an MP is a pay cut compared to some industries. Why should it not be?
The problem is that for decades now MPs pay has been going up faster than most other salaries, so now instead of being a vocation by those who are interested in doing the right thing for the country (many of whom either have had or still have a career in other sectors already) its become a career in its own right for out of touch career politicos - and as a career it is well remunerated earning well over what 95% of the country earns, even if its not top 1% figures.
It doesn't matter how high you ratchet the salaries, they'll never match the top private ones, nor should it. But it could and should be cut back closer towards what other people earn rather than merely the top less than 5% earn, as it was in the 70s and 80s that you originally mentioned, and let an MPs salary go up or down with their median constituents salaries, not the elite out of touch ones.
I don’t think it’s crazy. MPs are on what? £90k, plus generous expenses beyond what most of us could claim, and with a crazy good pension that makes other public sector schemes look tiny? Let’s assume it’s therefore “worth” £150k. I am happy to see them have that IF they have no second jobs, they get sacked at the slightest hint of financial impropriety, and they don’t whinge if they get made redundant after five years and can’t get a job because of things they said or did. Indeed, based on the latter I could accept it being higher.
When you are the richest man in the world you can afford to
When one has a ketamine drug habit, an untrammeled ego, no oversight, and are speculated to be actually mentally ill at this point, it seems one is compelled to.
I want Trudeau to punch him. Then tie his tie into reins then ride him like a horsey, whilst yelling "GIDDAY-UP TRUMPY" as the credits roll and salt tears run down Trump's cheeks as he remembers being a real boy.
Two countries with a detailed trade agreement with the US threatened with substantial sanctions. And there are people in the UK who think we should be doing a trade deal with Trump!!
The US is the UKs biggest export market at 21.7% followed by Germany 7.3% then Ireland at 6.7%
It is in UKs interest to negotiate a deal with the US
Not a good use of time.
The agribusiness lobby is way too strong and we should not accept the changes they would insist on
American food is fundamentally unhealthy except at the very top end.
With Reeves hollowing out UK agriculture we will probably end up with giant US agribusinesses owning UK farms anyway at which point resistance from farmers to a US trade deal goes away.
It’s not farmers I am thinking about but nutritional quality and environmental damage.
There's a genuine taste of expansionism, to this new Trump term.
Musk wants Greenland's metal deposits, and a lot of the MAGA would also genuinely love to see parts of Canada and Mexico incorporated.
Trump has threatened Denmark with a military invasion of Greenland. He has killed NATO today. We all knew he would, of course, but now it's pretty much confirmed. Putin and Xi will be delighted.
How has he killed NATO?
He has threatened to invade the territory of a NATO member state. You don't do that if you believe in, let alone value, NATO.
Actually there is some dispute - legally - as to whether Greenland is “in NATO”. From what I can see on Google anyway
This does not make Trump’s threats any saner, they are quite funny, in a dark way. If he’s got any good advisors they should tell him he doesn’t even need to invade - from what I know of Greenland (and I’ve been there) they want to cut ties with Denmark. And despite what the Greenlandic leader says, if America offered a sweet enough deal they would join the USA as a kind of cold Puerto Rico, but way more valuable
There are only 60,000 Greenlanders. Trump could literally offer them each $100,000 = $6bn. That’s nothing to the USA
They would take it. Heck, I reckon most Brits would take it
What's interesting about the Greenland situation is that the people seem to be open to the idea of joining the US, it hasn't been rejected out of hand but I guess that's to be expected given how badly Denmark seems to have neglected the place. If I was the government I'd be worried about our overseas territories choosing this option too given how badly we neglect them.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)
Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.
Margaret Thatcher dealt successfully with Mr Whippy, but not so successfully with the Mr. Softees in her cabinet.
I thought the vegetables had what she was having?
In truth, despite all the “dictator” stuff, she ran a cabinet government. And one stuffed full of her opponents.
Indeed, one thing that does her and her cabinet great credit was the cabinet overruled her when it came to the AIDS crisis, she wanted it to be a moral campaign whereas Norman Fowler and others wanted it to be a practical campaign.
Once the cabinet voted Thatcher got behind the decision.
I will say that Norman Fowler is an utter hero, he undoubtedly saved the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, if not more.
It was Fiona Fowler. Norman wasn’t going to fight Maggie on it but she convinced him to.
Having read the thread I am not really any the wiser on Canadian politics. I am not even better informed. Have we finally found a subject about which we know nothing and care less? Remarkable and notable.
Mrs PtP knew Christia Freeland at Harvard. She says she's nice.
On topic: I wondered if Carney was shorter odds with Ladbrokes because of UK name recognition (akin to betting on England for a tournament win with a UK bookie) but, no, US Sportsbooks on a quick glance seem to quote fairly comparable odds.
Not sure its the greatest idea for the Grits to run with Carney. A bit of Michael Ignatieff's aloof elitism about him. Crystia is far more engaged with the party and has roots in Western Canada which marks her out against her largely central Canadian rivals. Joly could be an outside bet here too- there is a feeling that it's time for the LPC to have a female leader.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
That’s nonsense. Several years post Oxford as a chemist in a variety of roles, then a career change to law and five or six years at that before becoming an MP. Pretty decent I’d say. I also see she only published one scientific paper, incidentally in a Journal I have also published in (Journal of the Science of Agriculture and Food).
This started with Thatcher being offered as an example of someone having had a career before politics. I would contend (as I did above) that that doesn’t constitute a “career”. It’s the first chunk of starting one. I’m not diminishing her, just noting that she was always (at least after her post-grad stuff) focused on being an MP and highly political. Being a barrister was the fallback that allowed her to chase a seat and sharpen some debating skills. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend she brought much experience with her.
I do accept the basic premise that the modern PPE-SpAd-MP route is far worse though.
TBF to Thatcher, we are talking about immediately post-WW2. She finished at Oxford in 1947, got married in 1951, and she had twins in 1953. It was fairly unusual then for middle-class women to continue working after marriage, and especially when they had young children. She might have seen local politics as a worthy part-time pursuit, then got hooked.
My most recent experience of an airport lounge was the Star Alliance Lounge on the sixth floor of the International Terminal at LAX during a five hour layover. Very comfortable with nice showers and good food and drink. Not quite ultra luxury but a safe and comfortable way to pass the time before the overnight Air New Zealand flight to Auckland.
On other matters - my recollection of Thatcher was she faced many opponents in both the Shadow Cabinet and during her first administration but from 1983 the Cabinet was more in her own image but she still lost Heseltine and after 1987, despite the third win, her position deteriorated as the tension between her Cabinet and her personal office and advisers intensified.
There are no doubt some on here who still consider her deposition by the backbenchers one of the worst acts of self-inflicted harm by a political party in recent times.
The ending of fact checking in the name of freedom of speech is another example of the increasing ludicrous nature of modern politics. The absolute right of almost anyone to say almost anything in the name of expression is a license for misrepresentation, disinformation and half truths to flourish.
Re MPs' surgeries and casework, worth remembering that it was because of these that James Arbuthnot and other MPs became aware there was a potential problem with Post Office prosecutions and Horizon. It was not obvious at the start that it was a problem nor how big it would turn out to be. Thinking that you can triage at the start and identify the important stuff before you've looked into an issue is a tad delusional. Big important issues don't look like that at the start.
If we pooh-pooh this aspect of MPs' work we risk closing off one important way in which MPs can try to hold Ministers and others to account, not least because they will have real life information from constituents to counter the bland self-serving assurances civil servants tend to put into Ministers' mouths and letters.
The problem-solving aspect of MPs work rather appeals to me frankly and I dislike the somewhat snobbish dismissal of it.
It was before I was even party leader that my constituent Clive Stone brought the lottery of cancer drugs to my attention. People were dying, he said, because the treatments they needed were not being approved fast enough by the regulator, NICE. Finally, in 2011, I could address this, introducing the Cancer Drugs Fund, which pays for treatments that NICE hasn’t yet reviewed or has not deemed cost-effective. Cameron, David. For the Record.
This is unlikely, but in case the Online Sod Off You Can't Say That Act leads to woe for PB, I have a plan. And, unlike the Cylons, it makes some degree of sense.
Let me know your Twitter username (mine's MorrisF1) and I'll put together a list of PB users. That way, if the site needs to be reconstituted in some way there'll be a list of many of regulars to help get it going immediately. Probably easiest if you just send me a message.
Hopefully this will be completely unnecessary but I think it's worth doing as both a safety net and to have a decent resource for kickstarting something new if that turns out to be required.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
The Prime Minister was on £10,000 a year more than a hundred years ago, which would be somewhere north of half a million in today's money.
Jess Phillips @jessphillipsmp.bsky.social · 14m Just in from mammoth interview session to two bits of news. One that a DV perp got locked up because of something I did and that a vulnerable constituent had a a massive wrongful debt written off after our intervention. This is why I came to politics, this is why I'll just keep cracking on.
Somewhat misleading statement. The law takes its course without political interference ... or have the courts become politicised like the US?
Jess Phillips @jessphillipsmp.bsky.social · 14m Just in from mammoth interview session to two bits of news. One that a DV perp got locked up because of something I did and that a vulnerable constituent had a a massive wrongful debt written off after our intervention. This is why I came to politics, this is why I'll just keep cracking on.
Somewhat misleading statement. The law takes its course without political interference ... or have the courts become politicised like the US?
"something I did" might be as simple as persuading a victim to report what had happened.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
Like Napoleon. Lots of people think they are Napoleon - is that what you are suggesting?
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
That’s nonsense. Several years post Oxford as a chemist in a variety of roles, then a career change to law and five or six years at that before becoming an MP. Pretty decent I’d say. I also see she only published one scientific paper, incidentally in a Journal I have also published in (Journal of the Science of Agriculture and Food).
This started with Thatcher being offered as an example of someone having had a career before politics. I would contend (as I did above) that that doesn’t constitute a “career”. It’s the first chunk of starting one. I’m not diminishing her, just noting that she was always (at least after her post-grad stuff) focused on being an MP and highly political. Being a barrister was the fallback that allowed her to chase a seat and sharpen some debating skills. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend she brought much experience with her.
I do accept the basic premise that the modern PPE-SpAd-MP route is far worse though.
TBF to Thatcher, we are talking about immediately post-WW2. She finished at Oxford in 1947, got married in 1951, and she had twins in 1953. It was fairly unusual then for middle-class women to continue working after marriage, and especially when they had young children. She might have seen local politics as a worthy part-time pursuit, then got hooked.
Mrs Thatcher was a PPC by 1949 and that is how she met Denis.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
My most recent experience of an airport lounge was the Star Alliance Lounge on the sixth floor of the International Terminal at LAX during a five hour layover. Very comfortable with nice showers and good food and drink. Not quite ultra luxury but a safe and comfortable way to pass the time before the overnight Air New Zealand flight to Auckland.
On other matters - my recollection of Thatcher was she faced many opponents in both the Shadow Cabinet and during her first administration but from 1983 the Cabinet was more in her own image but she still lost Heseltine and after 1987, despite the third win, her position deteriorated as the tension between her Cabinet and her personal office and advisers intensified.
There are no doubt some on here who still consider her deposition by the backbenchers one of the worst acts of self-inflicted harm by a political party in recent times.
The ending of fact checking in the name of freedom of speech is another example of the increasing ludicrous nature of modern politics. The absolute right of almost anyone to say almost anything in the name of expression is a license for misrepresentation, disinformation and half truths to flourish.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
That’s nonsense. Several years post Oxford as a chemist in a variety of roles, then a career change to law and five or six years at that before becoming an MP. Pretty decent I’d say. I also see she only published one scientific paper, incidentally in a Journal I have also published in (Journal of the Science of Agriculture and Food).
This started with Thatcher being offered as an example of someone having had a career before politics. I would contend (as I did above) that that doesn’t constitute a “career”. It’s the first chunk of starting one. I’m not diminishing her, just noting that she was always (at least after her post-grad stuff) focused on being an MP and highly political. Being a barrister was the fallback that allowed her to chase a seat and sharpen some debating skills. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend she brought much experience with her.
I do accept the basic premise that the modern PPE-SpAd-MP route is far worse though.
TBF to Thatcher, we are talking about immediately post-WW2. She finished at Oxford in 1947, got married in 1951, and she had twins in 1953. It was fairly unusual then for middle-class women to continue working after marriage, and especially when they had young children. She might have seen local politics as a worthy part-time pursuit, then got hooked.
Mrs Thatcher was a PPC by 1949 and that is how she met Denis.
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
That’s nonsense. Several years post Oxford as a chemist in a variety of roles, then a career change to law and five or six years at that before becoming an MP. Pretty decent I’d say. I also see she only published one scientific paper, incidentally in a Journal I have also published in (Journal of the Science of Agriculture and Food).
This started with Thatcher being offered as an example of someone having had a career before politics. I would contend (as I did above) that that doesn’t constitute a “career”. It’s the first chunk of starting one. I’m not diminishing her, just noting that she was always (at least after her post-grad stuff) focused on being an MP and highly political. Being a barrister was the fallback that allowed her to chase a seat and sharpen some debating skills. Nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend she brought much experience with her.
I do accept the basic premise that the modern PPE-SpAd-MP route is far worse though.
TBF to Thatcher, we are talking about immediately post-WW2. She finished at Oxford in 1947, got married in 1951, and she had twins in 1953. It was fairly unusual then for middle-class women to continue working after marriage, and especially when they had young children. She might have seen local politics as a worthy part-time pursuit, then got hooked.
Mrs Thatcher was a PPC by 1949 and that is how she met Denis.
I've just checked and you are correct. Apols.
tbh I'm dimly recalling the BBC's The Long Walk to Finchley which is not currently on iplayer. If there is a cheap dvd on Ebay or your local electronics shop, it is worth a watch.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
(Unpauses PB holiday)
On La Dorries in that Newsnight interview (thank-you for the recommendation), it was astonishing - affirming Musk's intervention as 'disturbing British politics and helping calls for a national enquiry' seemed quite strange, when Musk had put out a tweet calling Jess Philips a "rape genocide apologist" and "an evil witch", and various outright fabrications culled from Twitter. She's framing abuse and lies as free speech as a political tactic.
(I hope I have not overstepped, there.)
On Stattsminister Nyborg, I think our team need to be Mr & Mrs Kinnock. She is Scandinavian, and as former PM of Denmark can tell Mr Trump where to get off wrt Greenland. He is the Social Care Minister of State, so he should have a decent idea, or know people who have, of how to handle an elderly fantaloon.
I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
The PM should certainly be on “you never need work again and need not be thinking about cash so you won’t be corrupt” money. I think we sort of assume they will get that via books and lecture tours, but we should just do it.
Ex-PMs already get a lifetime thing called the Public Duty Costs Allowance, which is £115k per annum at present, which is towards things like office costs, defined as "necessary office costs and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life." https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/former-prime-ministers-support
I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
The PM should certainly be on “you never need work again and need not be thinking about cash so you won’t be corrupt” money. I think we sort of assume they will get that via books and lecture tours, but we should just do it.
What evidence is there that people with a couple of mil in the bank are uncorruptable? I suspect it will be the other way around and they will be more open to that kind of thing than people closer to the current PM salary.
I shouldn't really feed PB's pet troll, but is there anything Trump or Musk could say or do that you wouldn't be willing to defend? It's no surprise that you don't have a problem with Musk supporting the openly pro-Putin AfD - whatever the blue and yellow in your avatar is supposed to be it's been obvious to everyone for some time that it doesn't mean support for Ukraine. But what about Trump threatening war with Denmark?
Is it worth a long shot bet on the Liberals winning the Canadian election? Canada is a country that is geographically and culturally close to the US, and thus central to their national identity is *not* being part of the US. Trump’s words will go down like a bucket of cold sick with most Canadians. Could that produce a rally around the flag effect? Is Poilievre seen as too pro-Trump?
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
Doctors are very good at inventing new ways to keep busy!
Islet cell transplantation has been around for a while, indeed some of the seminal work was being done in Leicester by Prof London and Prof Bell when I was a junior doctor 30 years ago. They were attempting islet cell transplants suspended in a barrier gel that prevented immune rejection. They too had short term success. The problem is that islet cells gradually die off so the effect was not sustained.
I have a number of type 1 patients cured by simultaneous whole pancreas transplant at the time of renal transplantation, albeit lifelong immunosuppressive. I think though that the evolution of the closed loop insulin pump systems is a more likely way forward for type 1 patients. This is being rolled out nationally already, one of several ways Britain leads the world in the management of diabetes.
Note how the one person he seems terrified of even remotely threatening is Putin. He's a bully and a coward.
Note that his argument for claiming Greenland - "it's essential to our national security" - is exactly the same as Putin's pretext for invading Ukraine.
And similarly mendacious.
Why is it mendacious? Imagine an alternative timeline in where China ends up with control over the Arctic and Canada.
Are you being deliberately obtuse?
The mark of a statesman is someone who sees further into the future than others. Trump is one of the few statesmen leading the West today, if not the only one.
Like Napoleon. Lots of people think they are Napoleon - is that what you are suggesting?
That's crazy - suggesting Trump has a clue who Napoleon was! Trump is just trying to imitate his hero Putin.
Is it worth a long shot bet on the Liberals winning the Canadian election? Canada is a country that is geographically and culturally close to the US, and thus central to their national identity is *not* being part of the US. Trump’s words will go down like a bucket of cold sick with most Canadians. Could that produce a rally around the flag effect? Is Poilievre seen as too pro-Trump?
Yes, perhaps not enough to keep them in power, but surely will boost the other parties.
Trump just wants to copy the success of Putin. He doesn't recognise that other countries have sovereignty.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
Doctors are very good at inventing new ways to keep busy!
Islet cell transplantation has been around for a while, indeed some of the seminal work was being done in Leicester by Prof London and Prof Bell when I was a junior doctor 30 years ago. They were attempting islet cell transplants suspended in a barrier gel that prevented immune rejection. They too had short term success. The problem is that islet cells gradually die off so the effect was not sustained.
I have a number of type 1 patients cured by simultaneous whole pancreas transplant at the time of renal transplantation, albeit lifelong immunosuppressive. I think though that the evolution of the closed loop insulin pump systems is a more likely way forward for type 1 patients. This is being rolled out nationally already, one of several ways Britain leads the world in the management of diabetes.
Off Topic
I saw an interview on Sky yesterday saying some Doctors were unable to find jobs Surely not unless by choice. Could you shed some light at all?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
Would be funny if that turned out the same way it did the last time a very ill world leader with delusions of grandeur and a determination to have lots of land he thought of as his by historical right tried to seize a major canal.
But I see no MacMillan to rescue us all from this lost paradise of Eden.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
I doubt that. In any event this is years away from being a generally available treatment.
Another day, more bad news for the hapless Reeves. Although borrowing costs going up are not ALL down to her budget, there are some global issues too such as the lunatic Trump's tariffs and inflationary policies, however it is also a reflection of the doubts the markets have in her policies and she is already on the verge of breaking her own fiscal rules.
A true political titan. We are truly blessed to have her in Public life. Totally selfless. Never about her.
I guess you're being sarcastic, but you do realise that Musky Baby has made it about her? It's hard to defend yourself without referring to yourself.
Well that's fortunate as that is the one skill she has in abundance.
Philips has had a lifelong commitment to fighting male violence and abuse of women. Possibly the best track record on the subject of any one in public life. A far more substantial and sustained campaign than any of the men so recently agitated on twitter on the subject.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
Isn't Trump's real beef the fact the Panama Canal is used to transit Chinese goods to the East Coast of the US.
We have to hope alot of what he is saying is posturing ahead of a negotiation.
What are the checks and balances to stop him invading Panama in the US political system ? Would he have to get approval from the Senate/Congress or could he just do it anyway ?
A true political titan. We are truly blessed to have her in Public life. Totally selfless. Never about her.
I guess you're being sarcastic, but you do realise that Musky Baby has made it about her? It's hard to defend yourself without referring to yourself.
Well that's fortunate as that is the one skill she has in abundance.
Philips has had a lifelong commitment to fighting male violence and abuse of women. Possibly the best track record on the subject of any one in public life. A far more substantial and sustained campaign than any of the men so recently agitated on twitter on the subject.
Well she is certainly not shy about telling us. Repeatedly.
Your well announced departure from here lasted around a day !!!!
On topic: I wondered if Carney was shorter odds with Ladbrokes because of UK name recognition (akin to betting on England for a tournament win with a UK bookie) but, no, US Sportsbooks on a quick glance seem to quote fairly comparable odds.
Not sure its the greatest idea for the Grits to run with Carney. A bit of Michael Ignatieff's aloof elitism about him. Crystia is far more engaged with the party and has roots in Western Canada which marks her out against her largely central Canadian rivals. Joly could be an outside bet here too- there is a feeling that it's time for the LPC to have a female leader.
On advice from a local Canadian source (Mrs PtP) I have had £40 on Freeland at 5/4. Two good candidates, she says, but Chrystia is 'more political'.
When did we last have two good candidates stand in for a major political Party in this country?
Another day, more bad news for the hapless Reeves. Although borrowing costs going up are not ALL down to her budget, there are some global issues too such as the lunatic Trump's tariffs and inflationary policies, however it is also a reflection of the doubts the markets have in her policies and she is already on the verge of breaking her own fiscal rules.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
Is it worth a long shot bet on the Liberals winning the Canadian election? Canada is a country that is geographically and culturally close to the US, and thus central to their national identity is *not* being part of the US. Trump’s words will go down like a bucket of cold sick with most Canadians. Could that produce a rally around the flag effect? Is Poilievre seen as too pro-Trump?
This is a fascinating insight into how your mind works.
Why would Poilievre favour a merger of his country with the US?
Canada was confederated by a Conservative, who also became its first PM - if anything he'll be even more protective of their identity, not less.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
Doctors are very good at inventing new ways to keep busy!
Islet cell transplantation has been around for a while, indeed some of the seminal work was being done in Leicester by Prof London and Prof Bell when I was a junior doctor 30 years ago. They were attempting islet cell transplants suspended in a barrier gel that prevented immune rejection. They too had short term success. The problem is that islet cells gradually die off so the effect was not sustained.
I have a number of type 1 patients cured by simultaneous whole pancreas transplant at the time of renal transplantation, albeit lifelong immunosuppressive. I think though that the evolution of the closed loop insulin pump systems is a more likely way forward for type 1 patients. This is being rolled out nationally already, one of several ways Britain leads the world in the management of diabetes.
Off Topic
I saw an interview on Sky yesterday saying some Doctors were unable to find jobs Surely not unless by choice. Could you shed some light at all?
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
GW2 was also not a war of conquest - the US were never planning to stay there forever. Whereas AIUI Trump wants to keep Panama under US control.
Another day, more bad news for the hapless Reeves. Although borrowing costs going up are not ALL down to her budget, there are some global issues too such as the lunatic Trump's tariffs and inflationary policies, however it is also a reflection of the doubts the markets have in her policies and she is already on the verge of breaking her own fiscal rules.
And what on Earth would happen if Trump invaded Panama? Such an act would be an illegal war of aggression under international law. It would have as much justification as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Would the UK and Europe respond with full economic sanctions? Would they kick US forces out of Europe? Is that the end of NATO?
No, see Iraq etc
You presumably mean the second Gulf war. Good point. However, I note GW Bush’s administration spent time and effort building up an argument for a just war and establishing a plausible casus belli. There was a lot of sympathy for the US after 9/11. While many countries opposed the action, the US was joined by the UK, Australia, Spain, Poland, Japan, Italy, Turkey etc. (Indeed, I note the “coalition of the willing” included both Panama and Denmark, both currently threatened by Trump, although not Canada.)
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
I'm entertained by Trump's idea that invading a fellow NATO state would be "protecting the free world".
His justification is literally that it's necessary to stop Russian expansionism, while he prepares to force the capitulation of Ukraine.
No doubt william can apply suitable casuistry to resolve this contradiction.
Just watched Newsnight. Good gravy I had almost forgot about Nadine Dorries. I am assuming she is some sort of elaborate performance art piece.
And what is it with Trump and Greenland? Did he watch the Borgen series and think it was real? I daresay he’ll be a touch disappointed when he finds out he won’t be dealing with former Staatsminister Nyborg in debates about the future of Greenland. .
There's no way Trump watches anything with subtitles.
Unless it’s subtitles translating standard English into Trumpanese.
‘I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, the most beautiful friendship in the history of friedships, so tremendous that it will blow all those other low IQ friendships outta the water.’
Another day, more bad news for the hapless Reeves. Although borrowing costs going up are not ALL down to her budget, there are some global issues too such as the lunatic Trump's tariffs and inflationary policies, however it is also a reflection of the doubts the markets have in her policies and she is already on the verge of breaking her own fiscal rules.
I don't think MPs particularly need more money, they just vote whichever way they're whipped and sort out constituencies problems. Now the PM should probably get a million quid a year with raised compo for other big gov't jobs but honestly this shower aren't worth their current rates.
The PM should certainly be on “you never need work again and need not be thinking about cash so you won’t be corrupt” money. I think we sort of assume they will get that via books and lecture tours, but we should just do it.
What evidence is there that people with a couple of mil in the bank are uncorruptable? I suspect it will be the other way around and they will be more open to that kind of thing than people closer to the current PM salary.
Yes, plenty of rich people are even grubbier in seeking still more than poor people, its a ridiculous idea. Even inconsequential freebies work on the rich as well as poor.
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
That's Foxy out of a job.
I doubt that. In any event this is years away from being a generally available treatment.
But medtech marches on.
OK, a conversation about Type 1 diabetes is worth ending my break for, though I'll be staying fairly quiet.
I'd say this will be 15-25 years before it becomes widespread as a routine therapy. For one thing, we need long term studies to see if it is a treatment with long-term viability. And it's surgical, so expensive to do.
One of the obvious problems is that this is a transplant, so has availability issues - where do the Islets of Langerhans for transplant come from, given that we have 300k-400k or so Type I Diabetics and about 10k new ones each year?
Removing the need for immunosuppression is one element, but there are others. They could potentially be grown through something like appropriately genetically engineered pigs with turbo-pancreases (I don't know enough to comment if it could be done specifically for individual compatibility and when), but really it will want artificially grown cells.
We also really want some sort of easy delivery mechanism - eg direct injection into your pancreas with a big needle, like the ones used for a bone marrow biopsy (these are about 3mm in diameter). I do not know if that is possible even in theory.
It took insulin pumps around 30 years to go from "you can have one if you take part in a clinical study and are within reach of a specialist centre - there were about 6 in the country, but you will have to fund some consumables yourself" to "rolling out semi-closed loop pumps to everyone who wants one over a couple of years."
Yep. We sorely need lower house prices. Then there's the switch of resource from wealthy to poor pensioners with the WFA removal driving better take-up of pensions credit. A significant upgrading of workers rights and the minimum wage. Ending the ruinous public sector strikes. Knocking WASPI on the head. Removing the tax advantages of the inequality machine aka private schools. Landing a big borrowing budget without spooking the markets. She's not doing too badly. She needs to get lucky on growth though and I'm not optimistic about that. There are, to put it mildly, clouds gathering.
lol. She has absolutely flatlined growth. See the dismal retail stats over Christmas. A calamitous chancellor. We would literally be better off with Rachel from Accounts
So far she’s been utterly useless and more tax increases may be on the horizon as a consequence.
I cannot believe I fell for the govt in waiting schtick. Mugged off doesn’t even enter into it.
The truly unnerving revelation came last week when it was revealed that as Starmer entered number 10 he was dismayed and astonished to find “there was no economic plan”
it induces, in me, a kind of existential dread for my nation. We are governed, and have been governed for a long while, by outright morons. This applies to the Tories as much as Labour, indeed it applies to the entire governing classes - civil servants, quangos, legal system, judges, the whole shebang. Possibly the monarchy as well
Sweep it all away
Well, hmm. Ok. Sweep it all away with what ? Reform?
The reason we have this problem is we have TOTAL DROSS entering parliament, rubbish salaries, an awful culture, ridiculous hours, and horrific abuse.
Look at the quality of politicians in the 1970s and 1980s, who'd had solid business, economic and leadership careers (real ones) and compare to now.
Fair
I would reduce the number of Lords by 70% and get rid of as many civil servants and diversity wotsits as possible. Also abolish the devolved parliaments and most of the quangos
But I would use the money saved to double MPs and ministers’ pay, at least. Make it a seriously attractive career for really bright people
If you double their pay it’s still not attractive for really bright people apart from really bright people who aren’t interested in money anyway.
Even doubling the PM’s salary doesn’t put them in serious city earning levels or legal partnership.
It needs, somehow, to become something that attracts the people with an idea of service and wanting to give back once they have had a life and career. It shouldn’t be a career in itself. Maybe draw lots of the retired cohort each year of 200 that sit proportionately with parties based on last election and dump out 200 MPs each year, keep adding experience and ditching careerists.
Ditch career politicians like Churchill, Thatcher, Wilson and Blair? The only recentish Prime Minister who was not a career politician is, erm, Keir Starmer. Be careful what you wish for.
Er, Thatcher was a successful biochemist AND a successful lawyer before going into politics
Eh? She was a research scientist for about five minutes and a a barrister for less.
She invented Mr. Whippy ice cream. If that only took her five minutes it just shows how brilliant she was :-)
Of course, and Boris Johnson invented the Oxford vaccine.
Usual fantasy from Toryboys. She washed out the beakers in a lab for a short spell and was a cleaner in a lawyer's and we get all this mince about her inventing the world.
She was a postgraduate scientist at Oxford University, which - considering the period - was an enormous achievement,
And she had a real career. And then became Prime Minister. And won three General Elections.
@rcs1000 I have done very well thank you and worked for 50+ years, certainly have not wrecked the lives of millions of people , sold off all the country's assets , etc etc. She was part of a large team at Lyons and part of a team of lawyers , pretending she invented everything is pathetic and fact she did a few bits of conveyancing is neither here nor there. Subsequently climbing the greasy political pole and setting in motion the complete decline of the UK. Smashing, keep up the crush.
Comments
https://bsky.app/profile/petertl.bsky.social/post/3lf5mzs2dec2b
https://bsky.app/profile/alastairmeeks.bsky.social/post/3letgluzluk2a
https://www.cnn.com/weather/live-news/los-angeles-wildfire-windstorm-01-07-25/index.html
And that everyone else there is too, or will soon be.
(In recent years, the state of California has not a great record in controlling, or better, preventing wild fires.)
https://x.com/trump_repost/status/1876786633829392728
My most recent experience of an airport lounge was the Star Alliance Lounge on the sixth floor of the International Terminal at LAX during a five hour layover. Very comfortable with nice showers and good food and drink. Not quite ultra luxury but a safe and comfortable way to pass the time before the overnight Air New Zealand flight to Auckland.
On other matters - my recollection of Thatcher was she faced many opponents in both the Shadow Cabinet and during her first administration but from 1983 the Cabinet was more in her own image but she still lost Heseltine and after 1987, despite the third win, her position deteriorated as the tension between her Cabinet and her personal office and advisers intensified.
There are no doubt some on here who still consider her deposition by the backbenchers one of the worst acts of self-inflicted harm by a political party in recent times.
The ending of fact checking in the name of freedom of speech is another example of the increasing ludicrous nature of modern politics. The absolute right of almost anyone to say almost anything in the name of expression is a license for misrepresentation, disinformation and half truths to flourish.
Wither truth ?
Cameron, David. For the Record.
"The windmills are driving the whales crazy. Obviously."
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1876674139626360931
This is unlikely, but in case the Online Sod Off You Can't Say That Act leads to woe for PB, I have a plan. And, unlike the Cylons, it makes some degree of sense.
Let me know your Twitter username (mine's MorrisF1) and I'll put together a list of PB users. That way, if the site needs to be reconstituted in some way there'll be a list of many of regulars to help get it going immediately. Probably easiest if you just send me a message.
Hopefully this will be completely unnecessary but I think it's worth doing as both a safety net and to have a decent resource for kickstarting something new if that turns out to be required.
Sana Biotechnology Announces Positive Clinical Results from Type 1 Diabetes Study of Islet Cell Transplantation Without Immunosuppression
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2025/01/07/3005841/0/en/Sana-Biotechnology-Announces-Positive-Clinical-Results-from-Type-1-Diabetes-Study-of-Islet-Cell-Transplantation-Without-Immunosuppression.html
..As far as we are aware, this is the first study showing survival of an allogeneic transplant with no immunosuppression or immune-protective device in a fully immune competent individual. Safe cell transplantation without immunosuppression has the potential to transform the treatment of type 1 diabetes and a number of other diseases...
ETA although the BBC says £5,000 from 1830 to 1930.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/8715505.stm
Looks as if the Canadians may have to see goodbye to health care and hello to guns unless they think of something.
On La Dorries in that Newsnight interview (thank-you for the recommendation), it was astonishing - affirming Musk's intervention as 'disturbing British politics and helping calls for a national enquiry' seemed quite strange, when Musk had put out a tweet calling Jess Philips a "rape genocide apologist" and "an evil witch", and various outright fabrications culled from Twitter. She's framing abuse and lies as free speech as a political tactic.
(I hope I have not overstepped, there.)
On Stattsminister Nyborg, I think our team need to be Mr & Mrs Kinnock. She is Scandinavian, and as former PM of Denmark can tell Mr Trump where to get off wrt Greenland. He is the Social Care Minister of State, so he should have a decent idea, or know people who have, of how to handle an elderly fantaloon. Ex-PMs already get a lifetime thing called the Public Duty Costs Allowance, which is £115k per annum at present, which is towards things like office costs, defined as "necessary office costs and secretarial costs arising from their special position in public life."
https://www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/former-prime-ministers-support
(Repauses PB holiday)
Islet cell transplantation has been around for a while, indeed some of the seminal work was being done in Leicester by Prof London and Prof Bell when I was a junior doctor 30 years ago. They were attempting islet cell transplants suspended in a barrier gel that prevented immune rejection. They too had short term success. The problem is that islet cells gradually die off so the effect was not sustained.
I have a number of type 1 patients cured by simultaneous whole pancreas transplant at the time of renal transplantation, albeit lifelong immunosuppressive. I think though that the evolution of the closed loop insulin pump systems is a more likely way forward for type 1 patients. This is being rolled out nationally already, one of several ways Britain leads the world in the management of diabetes.
I'm still amazed that people support Trump and Ukraine, because the two are obviously totally incompatible.
If you support Trump, you are against Ukraine.
https://kyivindependent.com/i-could-understand-their-feelings-trump-blames-bidens-ukraine-nato-stance-for-provoking-russias-invasion/
Trump just wants to copy the success of Putin. He doesn't recognise that other countries have sovereignty.
NEW THREAD
I saw an interview on Sky yesterday saying some Doctors were unable to find jobs Surely not unless by choice. Could you shed some light at all?
But I see no MacMillan to rescue us all from this lost paradise of Eden.
In any event this is years away from being a generally available treatment.
But medtech marches on.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/reeves-on-verge-of-breaking-her-own-fiscal-rules-as-borrowing-costs-surge/ar-AA1x7NSt?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=9e184109cbef4babbc00c72e4c7e291d&ei=8
We have to hope alot of what he is saying is posturing ahead of a negotiation.
What are the checks and balances to stop him invading Panama in the US political system ? Would he have to get approval from the Senate/Congress or could he just do it anyway ?
Your well announced departure from here lasted around a day !!!!
When did we last have two good candidates stand in for a major political Party in this country?
US action against Panama is not going to have support from any of these additional countries. There is no jus ad bellum. It’s not comparable with the second Gulf war, the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Grenada or any other US action since WWII I can think of.
Why would Poilievre favour a merger of his country with the US?
Canada was confederated by a Conservative, who also became its first PM - if anything he'll be even more protective of their identity, not less.
https://bsky.app/profile/methodicalmadness.bsky.social/post/3lf2st5akgk2n
Unless some magic growth appears within the next year or so, then it's either tax more, or cut spending.
His justification is literally that it's necessary to stop Russian expansionism, while he prepares to force the capitulation of Ukraine.
No doubt william can apply suitable casuistry to resolve this contradiction.
‘I think this could be the beginning of a beautiful friendship, the most beautiful friendship in the history of friedships, so tremendous that it will blow all those other low IQ friendships outta the water.’
Etc.
Reeves budget has not helped but she may well end up being an unlucky general here.
I'd say this will be 15-25 years before it becomes widespread as a routine therapy. For one thing, we need long term studies to see if it is a treatment with long-term viability. And it's surgical, so expensive to do.
One of the obvious problems is that this is a transplant, so has availability issues - where do the Islets of Langerhans for transplant come from, given that we have 300k-400k or so Type I Diabetics and about 10k new ones each year?
Removing the need for immunosuppression is one element, but there are others. They could potentially be grown through something like appropriately genetically engineered pigs with turbo-pancreases (I don't know enough to comment if it could be done specifically for individual compatibility and when), but really it will want artificially grown cells.
We also really want some sort of easy delivery mechanism - eg direct injection into your pancreas with a big needle, like the ones used for a bone marrow biopsy (these are about 3mm in diameter). I do not know if that is possible even in theory.
It took insulin pumps around 30 years to go from "you can have one if you take part in a clinical study and are within reach of a specialist centre - there were about 6 in the country, but you will have to fund some consumables yourself" to "rolling out semi-closed loop pumps to everyone who wants one over a couple of years."
It's a long and winding road,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Si7gu9yGz64
She was part of a large team at Lyons and part of a team of lawyers , pretending she invented everything is pathetic and fact she did a few bits of conveyancing is neither here nor there. Subsequently climbing the greasy political pole and setting in motion the complete decline of the UK. Smashing, keep up the crush.