Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
What she should have picked up from there was that she was different not that she didn't have a chance.
Medicine (but to be frank any degree / job) requires 2 things - good results and a decent CV showing how rounded the person is. A good application form mentioning other things that she has done (voluntary work, experience at Doctor's hospitals).... are what she needs.... Speak to the HR department at your local hospital and see what if they can point you at someone who can help her....
There are actually other ways into Medicine outside of immediate application - some courses (Medical Research say) provide routes in later and there are other areas of medicine radiography say which provide routes into medicine that are better rewarded than nursing..
The nearest hospital is 35 miles away.
Whilst I agree with you that she should have picked up she was different, rather than she didn’t have a chance, I think it is difficult for 16 year olds to have such confidence (especially from a poor background and a rubbish school) .
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
The welfare state needs to be cut back but that is not the same as abandoning it completely
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
There are better ways indeed, but that wasn't really my point. The immigration policy I mention was simply representative of advocates of the extreme globalisation advocated by Blair and Cameron seemed to cherish. Foxinsox seems to think this is the mainstream view and that opposing it is somehow narrowing the Tory reach; it is in fact a minority view, not shared by most voters.
So then why doesn't the government come up with better ways. Just on here there are enough Conservative members and activists who are uneasy with these plans to name and shame. I think reducing immigration is a widely shared goal among the general public, but I don't think these policies will be very popular. None of the papers seem happy with it, even broadly supportive ones seem to be questioning the wisdom behind this policy. Rudd and May need to think again and tone down the rhetoric. Maybe shift it onto consulting with companies that have a high proportion of foreign workers as to why they don't hire British workers and what can be changed in order for them to do so. Looking at why the minimum wage today isn't enough to live on for the average British worker but foreign workers will happily take it.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
When I was at college, a friend of mine applied for medicine (at Brighton, Leicester, Sheffield and Nottingham - I think). He got four As in his AS Levels in maths, chemistry, biology and physics. He didn't even get an interview. We think it was his personal statement that let him down. Yeah, cos that's what really matters when it comes to medicine.
I'm not sure I like the idea of telling medical students that they have to stay in the NHS or else face a hefty bill, but given that it is oversubscribed, those that get in should realize how lucky they have been to have been chosen.
In Leicester the personal statement is not scored for shortlisting. There are too many off the peg statements on the internet for them to have any value.
This was back in 2004. I've said Leicester - might have been somewhere else - but I'm sure he wasn't applying to the most prestigious teaching hospitals/universities (not that I'm suggesting Leicester isn't anything other than the best of the best, of course!).
I'm surprised Amber Rudd has been so restrained. It would be far better if the EU workers were readily identifiable by right thinking people so that they as well
Local preference is not a bad the give away. Local preferencements before benefits are payable (hence favouring locals). All perfectly possible within the EU Single Market, and always has been.
We have record employment levels at present. This is not about solving problems, this is about pandering to bigots.
I would not use the words that you do, bute many senior Tories) that the vast majority of her voters are dependent on the NHS and State education.
Sadly there isght. Certainly thekeen to repudiate all aspects of camerons leadership, so I have to assume they are moving sharply to the right. Always a risk of course, particular with labour showing how popular with the grassroots it is.
May's statements on immigration are in line with what the average voter thinks and more liberal than what the white working class think which shows how out of touch the metropolitan liberal elite were on the issue
Did you notice I said the views on immigration concern are indeed centrist? I do not share those concerns but know most people do, to some extent. My uncertainty was how centrist she will be generally. Given the ones on the right seem happiest, inpresume her talk of centrism is a distraction.
She has a big poll lead so her views seem pretty centrist to most British voters it seems
Relative to Corbyn that is probably true, at present. I did say I was uncertain, precisely because I am unsure. It is noticable though how defensive some people get about even hesitation about may. Corbynistic again, one might worry, but it is nowhere near that bad yet.
Of course a difficulty is defining what we mean by centre. I think the political spectrum is largely pablum in terms of distinct left and right ideologies, the parties jump all over the place, but you can also define it less abstractly as where most voters are, which will left or right depending on the issue, which partisans love to ignore in favour of pretending people fit into left and right boxes consistently.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
She should apply for a place at the University of Leicester Medical School. She would get a very fair interview here. I know - I am one of the interviewers! We have done a lot of work on our interview process based upon evidence from performance of previous undergraduates. We found that state educated students outperformed privately educated students on many in course assessments and modified the selection process to favour these. We want the best, but these are not always the best rehearsed and coached at interview.
What do you think of the balance between undergraduate medicine courses and entry courses for graduates? Seems a lot to expect someone to pick a vocation at 16/17...
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
My sister did an ACA paid for by her company, they tied her in for two years after she completed her qualification and that was much cheaper than training a doctor.
The sad thing for me in the new left is that proponents seem to care more about the EU and the freedoms of non natives to live in our new Jerusalem than our own indigenous population who struggle because of it: struggle to get houses, struggle to get decent jobs, struggle to get decent wages.
Until this changes, the new One Nation Toryism is the only show in town.
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
That may be the effect of unemployment benefit; Is that generous in the UK? How much do people get? But it's not the effect of in-work benefits like tax credits, which go to people with jobs. Those are the benefits that really got expanded by New Labour, and they figure quite heavily in the benefits-claimant figures.
Last night the morons were saying it was just The I newspaper hyperbole
Amber Rudd says already having 'early conversations' with sectors such as adult social care that have v.high proportion of foreign workers
And why is that the case? Because we have decided as a nation that we can't afford it, have cut the funding to the bone and then let the private sector try and profit from it.
A high proportion of foreign workers because they're willing/able to exist on the low wages and long hours that goes with the job. If it was better respected and better paid British people might be interested.
Social Care is very labour intensive. We import foriegn labour to do it because #1 British people don't want to earn BMW for wiping old people's arses on insecure contracts. #2 British people don't wasn't to pay much higher taxes to fund social care as the higher wage, higher status role it could be. It's another example of immigration making a service significantly cheaper to consumers by keeping wages down. We've an aging population, council budgets are still being slashed and now we've just voted for a big price hike in the cost of social care. We need to either ration social care even further, increase taxes or a mixture of both.
Its an entertaining story - but its mostly rubbish.
Green was the guest of a Magdalen undergraduate -he hadn't 'decided to go there for dinner with his girlfriend' (and now wife of now nearly 40 years)....
Dominic Grieve was NOT one of the Undergraduates involved - in fact when lawyers letters were flying around Grieve tried to calm things down.
Green did not 'break his wrist' - he sprained it - but there were sharp railings which could have meant a silly prank turned into a nasty tragedy.
The 'Magdalen Machine' was already well past its best - and Magdalen's next Oxford Union President - William Hague - had nowt to do with them....
On the Bow Group - again, I doubt it - May never struck me as particularly 'ideological' - a clear sense of what was right & wrong - but no dogma..(and also much funnier and wittier than she comes across)
I'm surprised Amber Rudd has been so restrained. It would be far better if the EU workers were readily identifiable by right thinking people so that they as well as their employers could be shamed. Issuing them with compulsory badges with twelve yellow stars would be a start.
Local preference is not a bad thing in employment. I haven't seen the detail of what Rudd proposes, but I think it is mostly the spin on it of "naming and shaming" that is the give away. Local preference is best achieved by havjng employable youngsters, a benefits system that favours work, and several years of NI payments before benefits are payable (hence favouring locals). All perfectly possible within the EU Single Market, and always has been.
We have record employment levels at present. This is not about solving problems, this is about pandering to bigots.
I would not use the words that you do, but it is an appeal to Daily Mail voters.
May is the first Tory PM in years to ask Maggies Question "Is he one of us?". She is not aiming to be all inclusive in her reach out to Britons, but she does realise (unlike many senior Tories) that the vast majority of her voters are dependent on the NHS and State education.
I'm afraid I think that view is simply wrong. May's cabinet is far less of a chumocracy, and her reach far more inclusive than Dave's was. It just doesn't pander to the sort of extreme neo-liberalism (like open borders and unlimited immigration) that some on here seem to want.
I don't want open borders and unlimited immigration, yet I'm completely against any kind of policy to "name and shame" businesses which hire foreign workers. There are better ways to decrease migration. Either something is legal or it isn't, if the government isn't going to introduce restrictions on migration to reduce the numbers then it shouldn't shame companies who take advantage of cheap labour.
The cynic might suggest that all this "name and shame" nonsense is because they have already decided that the BrExit deal they are going to get is going to be more or less Freedom of Movement/Workers, so legally they are not going to be able to bring down immigrant that much, so they don't have much alternative left but browbeating.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
Things like this. Throwaway remarks that obviously sound great to your tin eared echo chamber. Long and fiercely defended views like this are what means T May will walk the next election.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
My sister did an ACA paid for by her company, they tied her in for two years after she completed her qualification and that was much cheaper than training a doctor.
I don't think anyone is 'compelled' to stay... they just have to pay back their training costs if they go earlier than they promised.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
The welfare state needs to be cut back but that is not the same as abandoning it completely
Could you point me to the quote where anyone suggested abandoning it completely, or indeed cutting it back ?
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
Not as long as they are happy to repay their tuition costs.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
And no one should be entitled to be funded to become a doctor.
I don't think anyone is 'compelled' to stay... they just have to pay back their training costs if they go earlier than they promised.
Yes, which is what Jeremy Hunt has proposed, the tie in is four years. I guess the payback in year 4 won't be as bad as in year 1, but it's similar to how paid training works in the private sector. Anyone who has studied for a qualification through their workplace is already familiar with the idea of being tied in.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
On and on they drone. Time drips by. I can feel my soul seeping out of me, gram by gram. My body sagging. My bones turning to rubber. I daydream about walking out, but I’m not sure I’d have the strength.
Still, at least I’m getting paid to sit here. Think of the party members. They’ve paid up to £520 each for this. They don’t get to vote on policy, or to express their opinions. They’re paying through the nose for the privilege of clapping. From time to time they get to their feet for a standing ovation. I don’t think they’re actually impressed. They’ve just got pins and needles.
It does sound an awful experience if you're not there voting on policy. You might as well just watch it on tv.
Rafael Behr has a different take:
Once you have seen Theresa May tell a hall full of Conservative conference delegates that she will lead them out of the European Union, it is very hard to imagine how David Cameron could ever have stood before the same people to say the opposite.
Ripples of ecstasy washed across the Birmingham Symphony Hall as the prime minister affirmed her commitment to Brexit. It doesn’t matter that May backed the losing side in the referendum. It might even have helped, because she now compensates with born-again zeal. There is more rejoicing in the kingdom of Euroscepticism at one remainer who repenteth than over 99 righteous leavers who have no need of repentance.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
What she should have picked up from there was that she was different not
The nearest hospital is 35 miles away.
Whilst I agree with you that she should have picked up she was different, rather than she didn’t have a chance, I think it is difficult for 16 year olds to have such confidence (especially from a poor background and a rubbish school) .
I interviewed a great candidate last year who was from a pretty forlorn part of the Black Country. In his interview (we do 6 stations with a different interviewer evaluating a different aspect) on his life experience and motivation he was the first to point out that he had excellent grades despite being at a school labelled by OfSTED as failing. He used this as evidence of resillience and determination. Top marks from me!
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
What on Earth has happened to you? You used to be one of my favourite posters -- now everything is just shoe-horned into your hobbyhorse of Bad Brexit.
For example, in your desire to bash the Tories, you have not noticed that Nursing bursaries have not been abolished in Wales, (or Scotland or N. Ireland).
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
That may be the effect of unemployment benefit; Is that generous in the UK? How much do people get? But it's not the effect of in-work benefits like tax credits, which go to people with jobs. Those are the benefits that really got expanded by New Labour, and they figure quite heavily in the benefits-claimant figures.
It actually doesn't matter if it is generous of not. The point is that it will always SEEM more generous to people that have lower expectations about their standard of living, so at whatever level you set it, you are going to attract more able and experiences immigrants compared to the equivalent locals simply because they expect comparatively less.
I don't want open borders and unlimited immigration, yet I'm completely against any kind of policy to "name and shame" businesses which hire foreign workers. There are better ways to decrease migration. Either something is legal or it isn't, if the government isn't going to introduce restrictions on migration to reduce the numbers then it shouldn't shame companies who take advantage of cheap labour.
The cynic might suggest that all this "name and shame" nonsense is because they have already decided that the BrExit deal they are going to get is going to be more or less Freedom of Movement/Workers, so legally they are not going to be able to bring down immigrant that much, so they don't have much alternative left but browbeating.
I think brow-beating and encouraging people to blame their problems on foreigners could actually bring down net immigration quite a lot. Capable people who can work anywhere in the EU don't need to put up with hostility from the government and uncertainty about their status. You won't see everyone sell their houses and quit their jobs overnight, but when opportunities come up these people will take them.
I'm seriously depressed this morning. The centre ground of politics is being abandoned. When I moved to NI and threw my hat in with the UUP, rather than the NI Tories, I didn't expect to feel like my old party would lurch to the right of my new one.
@DavidRoe92: Note. If a policy means people can make 'jokes' about evil Nazi policy it reminds them of, it's not a good policy.
Or, that we're obsessed with wrong-headed comparisons to Nazism.
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
What she should have picked up from there was that she was different not
The nearest hospital is 35 miles away.
Whilst I agree with you that she should have picked up she was different, rather than she didn’t have a chance, I think it is difficult for 16 year olds to have such confidence (especially from a poor background and a rubbish school) .
I interviewed a great candidate last year who was from a pretty forlorn part of the Black Country. In his interview (we do 6 stations with a different interviewer evaluating a different aspect) on his life experience and motivation he was the first to point out that he had excellent grades despite being at a school labelled by OfSTED as failing. He used this as evidence of resillience and determination. Top marks from me!
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
Worse, as far as we're concerned we're being asked to help hold the door open and make a success of the impending barbarian invasion!
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
A true one nation Tory doesn't name and shame people for doing something legal. You are using the label, but there is no evidence that Mrs May is a one nation Tory. Increasing academic selection without having policy for those who are not academically gifted, naming and shaming companies who aren't breaking the law, threatening to deport foreign doctors who will have been here for 9 years in 2025. These are not the actions of a one nation Tory.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
What on Earth has happened to you? You used to be one of my favourite posters -- now everything is just shoe-horned into your hobbyhorse of Bad Brexit.
For example, in your desire to bash the Tories, you have not noticed that Nursing bursaries have not been abolished in Wales, (or Scotland or N. Ireland).
Yes, you are right on the England only nature of the Bursary abolition. I'm not shoehorning anything. Hunt announced his cap policy , a policy he could have introduced anytime, in response to Brexit. He spun it via a Brexit prism. Then the PM gave an interview linking it immigration and Foriegn Doctors subsequently being no longer needed. I'm not shoehorning it into Brexit. I'm pointing out the government is shoehorning it into Brexit.
Oh and Ukip without Farage is currently a bit like the TUV without Jim Allister. It was just much more successful electorally than the TUV. Of course, it is possible a new Farage can be found. Salmond had to rescue the SNP after Swinney until Sturgeon emerged as a force
@DavidRoe92: Note. If a policy means people can make 'jokes' about evil Nazi policy it reminds them of, it's not a good policy.
Or, that we're obsessed with wrong-headed comparisons to Nazism.
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
So it seems that only one of the 11 friends you mention was willing to try to see it from the point of view of the people who live behind those doors. As soon as you do that, it's clear that the "luvvie" is right.
It's the "Don't say that; that breaks Godwin's law, you know" people who have the closed minds, in my experience. Then they have a little strained laugh and stick their heads back in the sand.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
A true one nation Tory doesn't name and shame people for doing something legal. You are using the label, but there is no evidence that Mrs May is a one nation Tory. Increasing academic selection without having policy for those who are not academically gifted, naming and shaming companies who aren't breaking the law, threatening to deport foreign doctors who will have been here for 9 years in 2025. These are not the actions of a one nation Tory.
To be honest Max, I think you've taken against May this morning:
1) Grammar schools policy is subject of an active review - too early to judge 2) Could you point me to policy evidence of this naming and shaming, or the deportations of Docs. I suspect it is a suggestion for the former, and a 'we'll favour English Docs come 2025' stance.
And, to be perfectly electorally ruthless about it, are you going to vote for anyone else even if your worst case scenario post comes to fruition? Widening the Tory base means reaching beyond what many Tory voters find pleasing - as does governing well.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
She should apply for a place at the University of Leicester Medical School. She would get a very fair interview here. I know - I am one of the
What do you think of the balance between undergraduate medicine courses and entry courses for graduates? Seems a lot to expect someone to pick a vocation at 16/17...
The balance between A level entry, Graduate Entry and Overseas Entry is not set by me, so I do not have any feeling if it is the right balance other than my own instinct. It seems fine to me. In each section the candidates compete only against others in the same category, so A level students do not compete against those with first degrees (many of whom are nurses/physios/ ODPs etc).
At A level we favour those post award over AS level. In part this is because many schools are innacurate in their predictions (state schools tend to under predict,, thereby penalising their own) and also because working for a year adds maturity.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
There are multiple Conservative members and activists who feel uneasy about this idea of naming and shaming, hardly Guardian readers.
Me too. You made the connection between naming and shaming and my posting above, I didn't. I was commenting on the general idea that having had a very centrist Blair and Cameron for 20 years speaking the same language and moving in the same circles as the Guardianistas, they are even more apoplexic than usual because a traditional Tory is looking further afield for voters and political attention that the tapas bars of central London.
I guess the reality is more likely some kind of wacky mix-up where the Trump campaign thought the RNC were taking care of GOTV and the RNC thought the Trump campaign was doing it.
No, the reality probably is that the RNC is sabotaging Trump. Many senior politicians have failed to endorse Trump and prominent donors have closed their cheque books to Trump while continuing to fund downstream candidates -- the Koch brothers have been open about this, for instance.
I think the GOP are sabotaging for multiple reasons, but they are doing it.
The guy cited earlier is in my timeline and I watched his periscope. It had over 1000 within seconds.
@DavidRoe92: Note. If a policy means people can make 'jokes' about evil Nazi policy it reminds them of, it's not a good policy.
Or, that we're obsessed with wrong-headed comparisons to Nazism.
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
So it seems that only one of the 11 friends you mention was willing to try to see it from the point of view of the people who live behind those doors. As soon as you do that, it's clear that the "luvvie" is right.
It's the "Don't say that; that breaks Godwin's law, you know" people who have the closed minds, in my experience. Then they have a little strained laugh and stick their heads back in the sand.
Someone (newsnight I think) interviewed the occupants of the houses. Several said they'd rather have a house with a red door than no house where they had come from. Many also pointed out that other houses not occupied by immigrants also had red doors.
Seriously, sometimes we need to step back at the bigger picture and think. Wow, this bigger picture is really quite bladdy great. Not looking for the mispainted red door in the corner.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
To be fair, May looks like being more conservative, less One Nation.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
A true one nation Tory doesn't name and shame people for doing something legal. You are using the label, but there is no evidence that Mrs May is a one nation Tory. Increasing academic selection without having policy for those who are not academically gifted, naming and shaming companies who aren't breaking the law, threatening to deport foreign doctors who will have been here for 9 years in 2025. These are not the actions of a one nation Tory.
They are the actions of a government that has promised a lot but on closer inspection doesn't have the money or legal standing to back it up. The similarity of both these ideas is they need minimal changes to the law (which is good if you have a tiny majority), and cost nothing.
@Mortimer The policy Rudd announced was a consultation on requiring companies to publish the percentage of their staff who are not UK citizens. This is certainly " naming ". Whether it's " shaming " depends on your attitudes to employing Foriegn staff. However given the context, a speech on reducing immigration, it's not unreasonable to assume Rudd's hope was having to publish figures would deter hiring foreigners.
I'm surprised Amber Rudd has been so restrained. It would be far better if the EU workers were readily identifiable by right thinking people so that they as well as their employers could be shamed. Issuing them with compulsory badges with twelve yellow stars would be a start.
Local preference is not a bad thing in employment. I haven't seen the detail of what Rudd proposes, but I think it is mostly the spin on it of "naming and shaming" that is the give away. Local preference is best achieved by havjng employable youngsters, a benefits system that favours work, and several years of NI payments before benefits are payable (hence favouring locals). All perfectly possible within the EU Single Market, and always has been.
We have record employment levels at present. This is not about solving problems, this is about pandering to bigots.
I would not use the words that you do, but it is an appeal to Daily Mail voters.
May is the first Tory PM in years to ask Maggies Question "Is he one of us?". She is not aiming to be all inclusive in her reach out to Britons, but she does realise (unlike many senior Tories) that the vast majority of her voters are dependent on the NHS and State education.
Sadly there is definitely pandering going on, but I cannot figure out at this point if may is still interested in other centre ground issues (immigration concern is not shared by me, but is surely a centre ground issue for a great many of the public so pandering on that is not really right wing) or if that's just talk to distract from a hard pitch to the right. Certainly the Tory equivalent of Corbynistas seem very happy at the moment, and keen to repudiate all aspects of camerons leadership, so I have to assume they are moving sharply to the right. Always a risk of course, particular with labour showing how popular with the grassroots it is.
May's statements on immigration are in line with what the average voter thinks and more liberal than what the white working class think which shows how out of touch the metropolitan liberal elite were on the issue
Mr. Fletcher, what's the political situation like in Northern Ireland?
Erm. Amusing.
Longer answer is that it's in a state of flux. Opposition, which I personally advocated on these pages, is something that the entire political class here is taking some getting used to. The Opposition hasn't really got its act together yet but, despite this, the Executive are shit-scared of it. The DUP are really just blustering and getting angry whenever ANY serious question is put to their ministers and I think they are starting to realise that having to traipse in to support numerous Sinn Fein motions and amendments while Jim Allister (in particular) laughs and tweets about it might harm them in the medium term.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
@Mortimer The policy Rudd announced was a consultation on requiring companies to publish the percentage of their staff who are not UK citizens. This is certainly " naming ". Whether it's " shaming " depends on your attitudes to employing Foriegn staff. However given the context, a speech on reducing immigration, it's not unreasonable to assume Rudd's hope was having to publish figures would deter hiring foreigners.
It also simply doesn't work. Many companies don't directly employ their overseas workers. There are an awful lot of TCS people I know in various companies who are not employed by the British company as their entire IT department is now outsourced to TCS...
To be honest Max, I think you've taken against May this morning:
1) Grammar schools policy is subject of an active review - too early to judge 2) Could you point me to policy evidence of this naming and shaming, or the deportations of Docs. I suspect it is a suggestion for the former, and a 'we'll favour English Docs come 2025' stance.
And, to be perfectly electorally ruthless about it, are you going to vote for anyone else even if your worst case scenario post comes to fruition? Widening the Tory base means reaching beyond what many Tory voters find pleasing - as does governing well.
1. That's the problem, the policy is completely unfinished and yet they thought it was ready to reveal. If it is finished then there is no way I will support it. 2. Just this morning Mrs Rudd has been on TV talking about introducing a naming and shaming policy, same for Mrs May and the foreign doctors who will be sent home in 2025 when there are enough British doctors.
As for voting, maybe yes, but I probably won't go out and campaign for the party. There are many who may decide to stay home or even vote for the bloody Lib Dems in protest. Widening the base to include UKIP voters had been considered in the past but as they knew then, for every voter gained on the right one was lost in the centre to Labour or the Lib Dems. Losing votes to UKIP is a lot safer than losing them to the other two parties.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
A true one nation Tory doesn't name and shame people for doing something legal. You are using the label, but there is no evidence that Mrs May is a one nation Tory. Increasing academic selection without having policy for those who are not academically gifted, naming and shaming companies who aren't breaking the law, threatening to deport foreign doctors who will have been here for 9 years in 2025. These are not the actions of a one nation Tory.
I'm seriously depressed this morning. The centre ground of politics is being abandoned. When I moved to NI and threw my hat in with the UUP, rather than the NI Tories, I didn't expect to feel like my old party would lurch to the right of my new one.
In this new World of politics where Jeremy Corbyn and Donal Trump are possible, it occurs to me there is space for a new party of the centre, but not just a split from the Labour Party, a split from the Ultra-Tories.
Imagine a gang of four of Chuka, David Laws, Micheal Gove and George Osborne...
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
Well said. Blindingly obvious common sense that remains in short supply whilst huff puffing surrounds us.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
To be fair, May looks like being more conservative, less One Nation.
Although, while Cammo talked the liberal/One Nation talk, his and Osborne's policies in practice favoured the rich. May yet prove to be more effective.
@Mortimer The policy Rudd announced was a consultation on requiring companies to publish the percentage of their staff who are not UK citizens. This is certainly " naming ". Whether it's " shaming " depends on your attitudes to employing Foriegn staff. However given the context, a speech on reducing immigration, it's not unreasonable to assume Rudd's hope was having to publish figures would deter hiring foreigners.
It would certainly be interesting to have some data on numbers of foreign workers classified by sector of employment and geographical area. Optimistically I'd like to think it might educate people on why Brits aren't taking those jobs although it probably will just descend into shaming rather than educating.
I'm seriously depressed this morning. The centre ground of politics is being abandoned. When I moved to NI and threw my hat in with the UUP, rather than the NI Tories, I didn't expect to feel like my old party would lurch to the right of my new one.
In this new World of politics where Jeremy Corbyn and Donal Trump are possible, it occurs to me there is space for a new party of the centre, but not just a split from the Labour Party, a split from the Ultra-Tories.
Imagine a gang of four of Chuka, David Laws, Micheal Gove and George Osborne...
Imagine indeed. They'd get about 10 seats and kill off the LDs too.
As for voting, maybe yes, but I probably won't go out and campaign for the party. There are many who may decide to stay home or even vote for the bloody Lib Dems in protest. Widening the base to include UKIP voters had been considered in the past but as they knew then, for every voter gained on the right one was lost in the centre to Labour or the Lib Dems. Losing votes to UKIP is a lot safer than losing them to the other two parties.
This is the Brexit Britain you voted for. You won.
What was the phrase so beloved of the Brexiteers the morning after? Oh, yes...
I'm surprised Amber Rudd has been so restrained. It would be far better if the EU workers were readily identifiable by right thinking people so that they as well
Local preference is not a bad the give away. Local preferencements before benefits are payable (hence favouring locals). All perfectly possible within the EU Single Market, and always has been.
We have record employment levels at present. This is not about solving problems, this is about pandering to bigots.
I would not use the words that you do, bute many senior Tories) that the vast majority of her voters are dependent on the NHS and State education.
Sadly there isght. Certainly thekeen to repudiate all aspects of camerons leadership, so I have to assume they are moving sharply to the right. Always a risk of course, particular with labour showing how popular with the grassroots it is.
May's statements on immigration are in line with what the average voter thie
Did you notice I said the views on immigration concern are indeed centrist? I do not share those.
She has a big poll lead so her views seem pretty centrist to most British voters it seems
Relative to Corbyn that is probably true, at present. I did say I was uncertain, precisely because I am unsure. It is noticable though how defensive some people get about even hesitation about may. Corbynistic again, one might worry, but it is nowhere near that bad yet.
Of course a difficulty is defining what we mean by centre. I think the political spectrum is largely pablum in terms of distinct left and right ideologies, the parties jump all over the place, but you can also define it less abstractly as where most voters are, which will left or right depending on the issue, which partisans love to ignore in favour of pretending people fit into left and right boxes consistently.
The centre ground is not the exact midpoint between socialism and capitalism and liberals and authoritarians and certainly not simply socially liberal, fiscal conservatism but what most voters want. Most voters want immigration controls and a plurality even want new grammars
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
She should apply for a place at the University of Leicester Medical School. She would get a very fair interview here. I know - I am one of the
What do you think of the balance between undergraduate medicine courses and entry courses for graduates? Seems a lot to expect someone to pick a vocation at 16/17...
The balance between A level entry, Graduate Entry and Overseas Entry is not set by me, so I do not have any feeling if it is the right balance other than my own instinct. It seems fine to me. In each section the candidates compete only against others in the same category, so A level students do not compete against those with first degrees (many of whom are nurses/physios/ ODPs etc).
At A level we favour those post award over AS level. In part this is because many schools are innacurate in their predictions (state schools tend to under predict,, thereby penalising their own) and also because working for a year adds maturity.
The great thing about discussing things online is that you discovers things that while obvious you never quite knew - the one above is probably very useful for anyone wanting to do medicine...
To be honest Max, I think you've taken against May this morning:
1) Grammar schools policy is subject of an active review - too early to judge 2) Could you point me to policy evidence of this naming and shaming, or the deportations of Docs. I suspect it is a suggestion for the former, and a 'we'll favour English Docs come 2025' stance.
And, to be perfectly electorally ruthless about it, are you going to vote for anyone else even if your worst case scenario post comes to fruition? Widening the Tory base means reaching beyond what many Tory voters find pleasing - as does governing well.
1. That's the problem, the policy is completely unfinished and yet they thought it was ready to reveal. If it is finished then there is no way I will support it. 2. Just this morning Mrs Rudd has been on TV talking about introducing a naming and shaming policy, same for Mrs May and the foreign doctors who will be sent home in 2025 when there are enough British doctors.
As for voting, maybe yes, but I probably won't go out and campaign for the party. There are many who may decide to stay home or even vote for the bloody Lib Dems in protest. Widening the base to include UKIP voters had been considered in the past but as they knew then, for every voter gained on the right one was lost in the centre to Labour or the Lib Dems. Losing votes to UKIP is a lot safer than losing them to the other two parties.
And this is where we disagree, but I think these policies will appeal as much to Midland Labour voters as they will to UKIPers.
There are not many LDs now (and not many LD marginals either) anyway, I'm not especially worried about those votes.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
If one was looking to make an argument, one could suggest that the so called liberal elite, the AB metropolitans and Guardianista are even more incandescent than usual at the moment, not just because the masses voted against staying the EU, a touchstone of their faith, but in that act they made politicians remember there were more people in the country what the noisy chattering classes.
The upper middle class, the media, the City and the upper echelons of the public sector have had two decades of being shameless pandered to, first by Blair and then by Cameron, they have grown up, or grown old being used to politicians giving them what they want, or at least sounding as if they wanted to give them what they want, and now all of a sudden the politicians are starting to notice that they have been holding that conversation with a relatively small section of the population, and that large, forgotten sections of the country are starting to get restless at the inattention.
Maybe some people sitting behind their morning Guardian are starting to get a bit nervous, they fear with some justification that politicians are starting to look at the country a bit more broadly, and that their interests might not received the attention that they are used to. Historically they would have looked for a Blair or a Clegg in the other parties to listen to them, but all they can see is navel gazing and irrelevance, and they begin to wonder if the barbarians are at the door.
May is targeting Sun and Mail rather than Times and Guardian readers
I think that is what I said, and hence the Guardian readers think the barbarians are at the door.
To be fair, the Grauniad readers have thought the barbarians were at the door for nearly 40 years.
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
To be fair, May looks like being more conservative, less One Nation.
Although, while Cammo talked the liberal/One Nation talk, his and Osborne's policies in practice favoured the rich. May yet prove to be more effective.
Really? The distributional analysis from 2010-2015 showed it was middle income earners who did the best from Osborne's budgets while the top 10% lost the most.
@DavidRoe92: Note. If a policy means people can make 'jokes' about evil Nazi policy it reminds them of, it's not a good policy.
Or, that we're obsessed with wrong-headed comparisons to Nazism.
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
So it seems that only one of the 11 friends you mention was willing to try to see it from the point of view of the people who live behind those doors. As soon as you do that, it's clear that the "luvvie" is right.
It's the "Don't say that; that breaks Godwin's law, you know" people who have the closed minds, in my experience. Then they have a little strained laugh and stick their heads back in the sand.
Someone (newsnight I think) interviewed the occupants of the houses. Several said they'd rather have a house with a red door than no house where they had come from. Many also pointed out that other houses not occupied by immigrants also had red doors.
Seriously, sometimes we need to step back at the bigger picture and think. Wow, this bigger picture is really quite bladdy great. Not looking for the mispainted red door in the corner.
The Red Door story was show to be a little disingenuous since the doors of ALL the houses let out by Jomast (the landlord) were painted red, and had been since before they ever got involved in housing asylum seekers - in other words its more outrage bus froth,
Mr. X, indeed. Condemning people for legal practices, shaming them publicly for following the law, is demented and indefensible.
An exception might be made for areas where the legal code hasn't caught up to reality (taxing massive online businesses whose presence is largely ephemeral) but nowhere else.
ASBOs are/were similarly mad. Something is legal, or it isn't.
@DavidRoe92: Note. If a policy means people can make 'jokes' about evil Nazi policy it reminds them of, it's not a good policy.
Or, that we're obsessed with wrong-headed comparisons to Nazism.
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
So it seems that only one of the 11 friends you mention was willing to try to see it from the point of view of the people who live behind those doors. As soon as you do that, it's clear that the "luvvie" is right.
It's the "Don't say that; that breaks Godwin's law, you know" people who have the closed minds, in my experience. Then they have a little strained laugh and stick their heads back in the sand.
Someone (newsnight I think) interviewed the occupants of the houses. Several said they'd rather have a house with a red door than no house where they had come from. Many also pointed out that other houses not occupied by immigrants also had red doors.
Seriously, sometimes we need to step back at the bigger picture and think. Wow, this bigger picture is really quite bladdy great. Not looking for the mispainted red door in the corner.
Andrew Norfolk seriously embarrassed himself with that story. Almost everyone with a spec of knowledge called foul and pointed out the uniformity of door painting colours - especially in all social housing
I'm seriously depressed this morning. The centre ground of politics is being abandoned. When I moved to NI and threw my hat in with the UUP, rather than the NI Tories, I didn't expect to feel like my old party would lurch to the right of my new one.
In this new World of politics where Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump are possible, it occurs to me there is space for a new party of the centre, but not just a split from the Labour Party, a split from the Ultra-Tories.
Imagine a gang of four of Chuka, David Laws, Micheal Gove and George Osborne...
Lamb, Mandelson, Soubry and Ed Balls at the Ministry for Strictly ?
I'm not entirely happy with the Amber Rudd tone but one does think that over-filling the outrage bus in response somewhat diminishes the impact of sensible criticism - Farron, in particular is very susceptible to this and it just make him seem even more of twonk that usual.
@JonathanD I suppose you could arguing it's a free market policy. Comparison websites could rank companies on their " foreigner " % and consumers could act accordingly. Assassin, Morrisons and Tesco could compete on how British there workforces are nationally. In sub national advertising it could go the other way. Lambeth Waitroses could assure customers it's staff are double the national average of EU staff. So yes it's government intervention but the infomation improves consumer choice. And technology could adapt to it. You could click on a specific Amazon fulfilment centre ranked on staff ethnicity to support Brit employment. Press option 1 for British Press option 2 for non British on phone trees. It would allow us to rank Local Authorities, schools and hospitals on staffing ethnicity so voters and consumers could make informed choices.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Which is why it is a joke. Nations break the state aid rules on a regular basis to prop up their failing industries while the EU waits for an ECJ judgement despite having many of the same already. Either there is no state aid or there is, this in between solution we have where governments can prop up companies with taxpayer money and wait 6-8 years for the EU to order the company to pay it back is a joke.
So, after this conference, do we expect the proposed tory voting intention figure to go up or down? Judging by the level of hysteria on twitter, I would say up.
So, after this conference, do we expect the proposed tory voting intention figure to go up or down? Judging by the level of hysteria on twitter, I would say up.
Oh they'll get a bounce out of all of this. No doubt about that.
The morning of a Conservative Prime Minister's second speech (she gets two apparently, everyone else just the one) to Party Conference is never a good time to be a non-Conservative as the partisans are out in force rooting for their guy or gal.
I said at the beginning I thought May would be an interventionist and so it seems. She seems to want there to be plenty of Government which seems odd for a party which spends a lot of time railing against the power of the State (though generally only when Labour is in power for some odd reason).
One forgets how interventionist the likes of Heseltine, Heath and others were. They were controlling, often centralising and as filled with the belief that the Conservative State can solve all life's problems as Labour politicians who believe in the power of the socialist state.
There's nothing that planning and grotesque levels of capital expenditure can't resolve - indeed, from the NHS to the Armed Forces, listening to May's Cabinet yesterday, Heseltine might as well have been a past Prime Minister and we are back to corporatism.
Indeed, one might think the City and the private sector has been marginalised as have devolutionary-minded local authorities. Westminster and Whitehall are back in charge with a vengeance and May has even cloned herself in the form of Amber Rudd who tried to out-tough May herself yesterday and sounded ludicrous and insincere. I do think Rudd is the weak link in the top team and it'll be interesting to see how she handles her first domestic crisis or problem.
It's all a little depressing as we know the May tent will implode weighed down by its own contradictions and absurdities. The route to leaving the EU remains as unclear and filled with elephant traps as ever with an almost Micawber-like belief from the Prime Minister that something will turn up to get the best deal for the UK - perhaps a Sarkozy win next year.
Having been to enough Conferences, I'm always glad when Conference season is over and we can get back to what passes for normal. It will be a novel experience for May - having to do some real honest day-to-day governing and we'll see how she fares through her first winter in charge.
The UK Services PMI is out, and it's reasonable rather than great. It declined slightly from 52.9 to 52.6, although that is better than the 52.2 expected.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
The UK Services PMI is out, and it's reasonable rather than great. It declined slightly from 52.9 to 52.6, although that is better than the 52.2 expected.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
Were do you get 0.4% for the UK? Markit are predicting between 0.1% and 0.3% depending on how real July's shock figures were.
The UK Services PMI is out, and it's reasonable rather than great. It declined slightly from 52.9 to 52.6, although that is better than the 52.2 expected.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
My 0.2-0.4% projection might come good in the end and I'm not any kind of specialist, just a bit of common sense which seems to be sorely lacking in financial services at the moment.
The UK Services PMI is out, and it's reasonable rather than great. It declined slightly from 52.9 to 52.6, although that is better than the 52.2 expected.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
Were do you get 0.4% for the UK? Markit are predicting between 0.1% and 0.3% depending on how real July's shock figures were.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Which is why it is a joke. Nations break the state aid rules on a regular basis to prop up their failing industries while the EU waits for an ECJ judgement despite having many of the same already. Either there is no state aid or there is, this in between solution we have where governments can prop up companies with taxpayer money and wait 6-8 years for the EU to order the company to pay it back is a joke.
Well, there are two ways you could change it:
(1) You could allow the ECJ to proactively intervene, which would require it to be much more muscular in its approach, and would involve giving unelected bureaucrats a lot more power. It would also lead to potential issues if it was seen to have blocked something which later was found, in a proper court case, to have not breached state aid rules.
(2) You could make fines punitive, rather than just requiring the repayment of state aid. Maybe through using a 15% interest rate, or allow the ECJ to charge up to a 250% premium if it was shown that the government and company knew it was likely to breach aid rules,
I would suggest the second option is the only one that works.
I find Rudd entirely misses the point, which is that companies hire foreign workers often because British ones either don't want the jobs or are the weaker candidates. These weaker British candidates are the product of living and being educated in the UK, and their weakness is largely the responsibility of successive governments including ones that Rudd (and May and many others in the party) were part of. To get companies to actively favour weaker candidates is not meritocratic - Tories wouldn't approve of it if it were positive discrimination on the basis of sex or ethnic background, and it is effectively the same thing.
Rudd just seems to me to be quite stupid, in a sort of overzealous bashing through walls to curry favour with the leadership way. She was like that over Cameron and Brexit and she seems the same (in the other direction) over May's new Tory concensus. That could be the explanation. Or it could be something else, who knows?
Actually if you read Rudd's comments in the Guardian, she and May are really only kicking ideas around here.
The new government is trying to get a feel for what will and will not fly, I think. May likes insurance policies and fall backs before she acts. She loves to be 'popular'.
This is one of the reasons we've left. If the EU was really interested in blocking illegal state aid then they should step in now and block this contract.
The EU can only act in retrospect; i.e. a case is brought, the ECJ rules, and then it is ordered that the money is repaid.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Which is why it is a joke. Nations break the state aid rules on a regular basis to prop up their failing industries while the EU waits for an ECJ judgement despite having many of the same already. Either there is no state aid or there is, this in between solution we have where governments can prop up companies with taxpayer money and wait 6-8 years for the EU to order the company to pay it back is a joke.
Well, there are two ways you could change it:
(1) You could allow the ECJ to proactively intervene, which would require it to be much more muscular in its approach, and would involve giving unelected bureaucrats a lot more power. It would also lead to potential issues if it was seen to have blocked something which later was found, in a proper court case, to have not breached state aid rules.
(2) You could make fines punitive, rather than just requiring the repayment of state aid. Maybe through using a 15% interest rate, or allow the ECJ to charge up to a 250% premium if it was shown that the government and company knew it was likely to breach aid rules,
I would suggest the second option is the only one that works.
I'd go for the second option with a much higher premium and payback to companies who have been deemed to have lost out from the state aid.
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
I wonder how 'kipper' Rudd's comments will go down in Witney....
I think people are overestimating the "Cameroon-ness" of Witney, after all they just chose to ditch his anointed successor that the centre office was trying quite hard to foist on the constituency and instead selected a 37 year old barrister, district councillor and church councillor, who sounds quite May-ite to me.
The UK Services PMI is out, and it's reasonable rather than great. It declined slightly from 52.9 to 52.6, although that is better than the 52.2 expected.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
Were do you get 0.4% for the UK? Markit are predicting between 0.1% and 0.3% depending on how real July's shock figures were.
Well the services index for July was +0.4% so the PMIs were very likely an overreaction.
Yes, it was 0.1% if you included July, 0.3% if it was ignored and Augusts and Septembers figures were used. Business investment is the concern however and notable that the PMIs are already flagging up a lot of input cost rises.
Interesting reading all threads of recent days. My take on things is that we have for a long time (since Maggie) been in an apparently settled centre-left consensus middle ground. I say 'apparently' because I never felt that was where the true political centre ground actually lay. Brexit has exposed this and we seem to be settling on a slightly more centre-right middle ground. This is probably a bit closer to the actual average worldview in the UK. But it is only a bit further right. May is not Pinochet or Hitler! She's a decent vicar's daughter who seems to care about a somewhat broader church of our countrymen and their concerns than the preceding left-liberal elites did. That's surely a good thing. The wailing and gnashing is coming mainly from those on the left who see the centre ground moving away from them a bit further.
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
It may be that the government is leaning in your direction and is going for an EEA or at least FOM approach to BrExit, and as a result cannot legally control immigration. She may still feel it has to do something to at least looks like she is trying to reduce immigration, to the majority of voters that want immigration reduced, otherwise the kippers get 50 seats in 2020.
One day she made soup out of left over Brocolli stalks (I and 99% of brits would have binned them.
She pointed out that when you live in a country with no social security and you go through bad times with a three day week that is how you make ends meet.
It was nice soup too.
The welfare state existing has made us uncompetitive as we dont need to be so competitive to survive.
It is of course why wealthy civilisations collapse in on themselves.
No the welfare state has stopped people starving in the streets as happened in Victorian times, unless you get all your Broccoli from food banks most developed nations introduced a welfare state for a reason
Indeed. The byproduct is that a generous welfare state means are people are unwilling to accept a standard of living that is tolerable, or even welcomed by immigrants from less well off countries, so those immigrants take the jobs.
There is a basic nexus here that people are really trying hard not to understand, because the implications are too painful. When people do a job, they generate a certain amount of value for their employer, if the employer pays them more than the value they generate for his business, he will rapidly go out of business. In current market conditions, given international competition, the amount of value most unskilled workers can generate is around the minimum wage. If that amount of money doesn't produce an acceptable standard of living with acceptable residue money no one will take the job.
However the standard of living is acceptable for many immigrants, and isn't for many locals, so the immigrants take the jobs. Increasing pay doesn't change the equation, a higher salary means a better standard of living, or more residual cash. At the sort of pay levels an unskilled local would consider acceptable we are moving into the standard of living that many better qualified or more experienced immigrants would find acceptable, so the local still doesn't get the job.
It's about expectation and entitlement.
Well said. Blindingly obvious common sense that remains in short supply whilst huff puffing surrounds us.
Oh god, not the 'common sense' defence.
The classic deflection for moronic, unthinking, reactionary politics.
Down the street in the Welsh town where I live, there is a 16 year old girl who wants to become a doctor. Her name is Katie.
Katie's father is a retired nurse, her mother never worked, they have little income. She has never been abroard, they never take holidays, she shares a bedroom in a tiny house.
The local secondary school is in special measures (it’s Wales, there is less funding per pupil here than in areas like London where money is poured in).
Despite all this, she did very well in her GCSEs. I encouraged her in her ambition to become a doctor, and she has recently been to some open days in medicine at various universities.
She returned very depressed. For the first time, she encountered people like her, but from another world -- very different backgrounds, with all the advantages of a privileged education (whether at a well-resourced state school in the South East or an independent school).
She had begun to realise that -- with medical place arbitrarily limited by the Government -- that she would never be able to get into medical school. She has started to look at applying for a degree in nursing instead.
A few weeks ago, her father asked me: “Why when we need doctors, and when we have people who want to become doctors, does the Government restrict the number of places to study medicine at University”.
I am pleased that more people in this country (of whatever background) will have the opportunity to train as doctors and realise their full potential.
#1 Brexit nearly all of those barriers Katie faced. #2 The one barrier Katie faced which has been lifted, the cap, could have been lifted without Brexit. #3 If she studies Nursing Katie will now need a plan as the Tories have just abolished Nursing Bursaries to pay for lifting the cap on training places.
Everyone who threatened to leave the UK after small Jun Doc contract changes ought to be ashamed of themselves - it sounds like Katie would jump at the chance of that they have had and are willing to throw in the NHS' face.
Nonsense, no one should be compelled to stay tied to a particular job or country by the government.
If the government makes a significant investment in someone's training they have the right to attach strings (with the sanction being repayment if you choose to pursue other options)
The issue is that businesses are being asked to implement one of the government's core policies.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
Interesting reading all threads of recent days. My take on things is that we have for a long time (since Maggie) been in an apparently settled centre-left consensus middle ground. I say 'apparently' because I never felt that was where the true political centre ground actually lay. Brexit has exposed this and we seem to be settling on a slightly more centre-right middle ground. This is probably a bit closer to the actual average worldview in the UK. But it is only a bit further right. May is not Pinochet or Hitler! She's a decent vicar's daughter who seems to care about a somewhat broader church of our countrymen and their concerns than the preceding left-liberal elites did. That's surely a good thing. The wailing and gnashing is coming mainly from those on the left who see the centre ground moving away from them a bit further.
As a part-time member of the metropolitan elite, and part-time member of rural middle England, I think I am able to say that the old vicar's daughter, old maids bicycling to holy communion thing of course captures an important part of what makes Britain great and we would forget it at our peril. However, there is also no doubt that the metropolis is where the UK as a whole most sharply and successfully competes with the rest of the world.
I think it would be incautious to say the least if we were to condemn this latter, metropolitan element in favour of those maids.
Comments
Whilst I agree with you that she should have picked up she was different, rather than she didn’t have a chance, I think it is difficult for 16 year olds to have such confidence (especially from a poor background and a rubbish school) .
Of course a difficulty is defining what we mean by centre. I think the political spectrum is largely pablum in terms of distinct left and right ideologies, the parties jump all over the place, but you can also define it less abstractly as where most voters are, which will left or right depending on the issue, which partisans love to ignore in favour of pretending people fit into left and right boxes consistently.
Until this changes, the new One Nation Toryism is the only show in town.
Green was the guest of a Magdalen undergraduate -he hadn't 'decided to go there for dinner with his girlfriend' (and now wife of now nearly 40 years)....
Dominic Grieve was NOT one of the Undergraduates involved - in fact when lawyers letters were flying around Grieve tried to calm things down.
Green did not 'break his wrist' - he sprained it - but there were sharp railings which could have meant a silly prank turned into a nasty tragedy.
The 'Magdalen Machine' was already well past its best - and Magdalen's next Oxford Union President - William Hague - had nowt to do with them....
On the Bow Group - again, I doubt it - May never struck me as particularly 'ideological' - a clear sense of what was right & wrong - but no dogma..(and also much funnier and wittier than she comes across)
Once you have seen Theresa May tell a hall full of Conservative conference delegates that she will lead them out of the European Union, it is very hard to imagine how David Cameron could ever have stood before the same people to say the opposite.
Ripples of ecstasy washed across the Birmingham Symphony Hall as the prime minister affirmed her commitment to Brexit. It doesn’t matter that May backed the losing side in the referendum. It might even have helped, because she now compensates with born-again zeal. There is more rejoicing in the kingdom of Euroscepticism at one remainer who repenteth than over 99 righteous leavers who have no need of repentance.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/oct/05/birmingham-witnessing-tory-reformation-conservative-conference-brexit
One nation Toryism will outlive the Grauniad too.
Inscribed on a pub door somewhere in Bromley are the words 'Hic iacet Nigellus, rex quondam, rexque futurus'. #DianeJames #UKIP
For example, in your desire to bash the Tories, you have not noticed that Nursing bursaries have not been abolished in Wales, (or Scotland or N. Ireland).
A luvvie mate decided that the 'red doors' policy in a northern town last year was akin - I suggested that it might be because all the doors of one particular company might be painted red. He went off on one.
I spoke to about 10 of my other friends about it a few days later - they were nonplussed about the policy and all a bit 'wow, someone must go looking for the Nazi in everything'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37560694
It's the "Don't say that; that breaks Godwin's law, you know" people who have the closed minds, in my experience. Then they have a little strained laugh and stick their heads back in the sand.
1) Grammar schools policy is subject of an active review - too early to judge
2) Could you point me to policy evidence of this naming and shaming, or the deportations of Docs. I suspect it is a suggestion for the former, and a 'we'll favour English Docs come 2025' stance.
And, to be perfectly electorally ruthless about it, are you going to vote for anyone else even if your worst case scenario post comes to fruition? Widening the Tory base means reaching beyond what many Tory voters find pleasing - as does governing well.
At A level we favour those post award over AS level. In part this is because many schools are innacurate in their predictions (state schools tend to under predict,, thereby penalising their own) and also because working for a year adds maturity.
The guy cited earlier is in my timeline and I watched his periscope. It had over 1000 within seconds.
Seriously, sometimes we need to step back at the bigger picture and think. Wow, this bigger picture is really quite bladdy great. Not looking for the mispainted red door in the corner.
Longer answer is that it's in a state of flux. Opposition, which I personally advocated on these pages, is something that the entire political class here is taking some getting used to. The Opposition hasn't really got its act together yet but, despite this, the Executive are shit-scared of it. The DUP are really just blustering and getting angry whenever ANY serious question is put to their ministers and I think they are starting to realise that having to traipse in to support numerous Sinn Fein motions and amendments while Jim Allister (in particular) laughs and tweets about it might harm them in the medium term.
Off topic: I get a sense that the PLP might start pulling together. TMay's grammar school policy has given them something to agree about.
2. Just this morning Mrs Rudd has been on TV talking about introducing a naming and shaming policy, same for Mrs May and the foreign doctors who will be sent home in 2025 when there are enough British doctors.
As for voting, maybe yes, but I probably won't go out and campaign for the party. There are many who may decide to stay home or even vote for the bloody Lib Dems in protest. Widening the base to include UKIP voters had been considered in the past but as they knew then, for every voter gained on the right one was lost in the centre to Labour or the Lib Dems. Losing votes to UKIP is a lot safer than losing them to the other two parties.
May = Gordon in a skirt
Imagine a gang of four of Chuka, David Laws, Micheal Gove and George Osborne...
It would certainly be interesting to have some data on numbers of foreign workers classified by sector of employment and geographical area. Optimistically I'd like to think it might educate people on why Brits aren't taking those jobs although it probably will just descend into shaming rather than educating.
What was the phrase so beloved of the Brexiteers the morning after? Oh, yes...
Suck it up!!
There are not many LDs now (and not many LD marginals either) anyway, I'm not especially worried about those votes.
It is highly likely a case will be brought, but the ECJ works at a snail's pace, and it probably won't be decided by 2022-2023, by which time Alstom might be doing better. Or they work something else down the line.
There is no mechanism for the EU competition authority to rule in advance on a potential contract between the SNCF and Alstom.
Mr. X, indeed. Condemning people for legal practices, shaming them publicly for following the law, is demented and indefensible.
An exception might be made for areas where the legal code hasn't caught up to reality (taxing massive online businesses whose presence is largely ephemeral) but nowhere else.
ASBOs are/were similarly mad. Something is legal, or it isn't.
The morning of a Conservative Prime Minister's second speech (she gets two apparently, everyone else just the one) to Party Conference is never a good time to be a non-Conservative as the partisans are out in force rooting for their guy or gal.
I said at the beginning I thought May would be an interventionist and so it seems. She seems to want there to be plenty of Government which seems odd for a party which spends a lot of time railing against the power of the State (though generally only when Labour is in power for some odd reason).
One forgets how interventionist the likes of Heseltine, Heath and others were. They were controlling, often centralising and as filled with the belief that the Conservative State can solve all life's problems as Labour politicians who believe in the power of the socialist state.
There's nothing that planning and grotesque levels of capital expenditure can't resolve - indeed, from the NHS to the Armed Forces, listening to May's Cabinet yesterday, Heseltine might as well have been a past Prime Minister and we are back to corporatism.
Indeed, one might think the City and the private sector has been marginalised as have devolutionary-minded local authorities. Westminster and Whitehall are back in charge with a vengeance and May has even cloned herself in the form of Amber Rudd who tried to out-tough May herself yesterday and sounded ludicrous and insincere. I do think Rudd is the weak link in the top team and it'll be interesting to see how she handles her first domestic crisis or problem.
It's all a little depressing as we know the May tent will implode weighed down by its own contradictions and absurdities. The route to leaving the EU remains as unclear and filled with elephant traps as ever with an almost Micawber-like belief from the Prime Minister that something will turn up to get the best deal for the UK - perhaps a Sarkozy win next year.
Having been to enough Conferences, I'm always glad when Conference season is over and we can get back to what passes for normal. It will be a novel experience for May - having to do some real honest day-to-day governing and we'll see how she fares through her first winter in charge.
The Eurozone Services PMI slightly beat expectations coming in at 52.2 rather than 52.1 (which is a miniscule acceleration from 52.1 in August).
The UK number points to GDP growth of around 0.4% in the third quarter, and the Eurozone one 0.3%.
#UK service sector continues to recover from #Brexit vote shock as #PMI posts 52.6, (August: 52.9) https://t.co/N9WKkUZZos
https://www.markiteconomics.com/Survey/PressRelease.mvc/dffd5cda1bf44d619e050b04cf7adb88
(1) You could allow the ECJ to proactively intervene, which would require it to be much more muscular in its approach, and would involve giving unelected bureaucrats a lot more power. It would also lead to potential issues if it was seen to have blocked something which later was found, in a proper court case, to have not breached state aid rules.
(2) You could make fines punitive, rather than just requiring the repayment of state aid. Maybe through using a 15% interest rate, or allow the ECJ to charge up to a 250% premium if it was shown that the government and company knew it was likely to breach aid rules,
I would suggest the second option is the only one that works.
Rudd just seems to me to be quite stupid, in a sort of overzealous bashing through walls to curry favour with the leadership way. She was like that over Cameron and Brexit and she seems the same (in the other direction) over May's new Tory concensus. That could be the explanation. Or it could be something else, who knows?
The new government is trying to get a feel for what will and will not fly, I think. May likes insurance policies and fall backs before she acts. She loves to be 'popular'.
Government should set the rules which will be required for the stated policies: make those rules clear, then decide upon an immigration policy (10,000...10,000,000...whatever) and businesses should then be allowed to get on with it.
This runs the risk of businesses being unclear as to what their employment policy should or shouldn't be. It is the government abrogating their responsibility to create a benign (or at least stable) environment for businesses to operate within.
It is also an awful lot of government for a Conservative Party.
https://www.totalpolitics.com/articles/news/meet-robert-courts-surprise-choice-take-over-david-cameron
The classic deflection for moronic, unthinking, reactionary politics.
That you defend it says it all.
I think it would be incautious to say the least if we were to condemn this latter, metropolitan element in favour of those maids.