1. MPs in marginal seats simply have to try to meet expectations, no matter how unreasonable, unless it's illegal or disgusting. Merely saying they shouldn't won't make any difference.
2. In about half the cases, you are in fact able to help, mainly because you have an overview of all aspects of the system that constituents do not as well as access to media etc.
On point 1, of course they will, so it is about at least setting out very clearly to the public what is a reasonable expectation, so that while an MP might choose to do it, particularly in a marginal seat, most people are clear it is not really part of the role.
On point 2, yes you may indeed be able to help (even in other jobs, someone with a generic interest across a multitude of departments can be a great help as they know enough about many issues) - but the critical point was that in almost all cases of emergency you probably cannot, or trying to interfere in an emergency situation might be unhelpful, or it is not something that is in fact an emergency and can wait until morning.
Granted, you are the one who has actually experienced the role, but an MP might be knackered and go to bed at 10pm one night, and someone in an emergency won't be helped after then regardless and people have to know that, even if an MP will do their utmost to help if they do pick up.
You get it similarly with local councillors - I know one who would be called up at 11pm on a Sunday because of dog crap, and I'm sure you've had similar communication. You wouldn't respond to that, of course, so even if we accept an MP will want to help if they see a query late at night, which things can they help with, and which things would be counter productive to try something now and would have been better directed at a genuine emergency service and at what point would an MP calling it a night be of better help?
Also, speaking from the low levels, something that can truly annoy people is when someone in authority, be it a senior manager or an elected representative, blunders their way into what may be a complicated situation or one with immutable processes and insists upon immediate attention because they are a councillor/mp/senior manager. Now, I think to a certain degree all those roles may have the right to make inquiries, even inconvenient ones, but incorrectly thinking something is an emergency and not going through the proper channels can just make things worse, and people won't always know when that is. Often is the time I've had someone fairly senior worried about something a member of the public has managed to raise with them directly, whole meetings called to sort this mess out, and when they finally speak to the person dealing with it they find out, whoops, it's the law/already being dealt with/etc, and much time was wasted.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he was unable to leave hospital as the hospital pharmacy didn't want to issue his medication till the morning - would I mind speaking to them, ideally at once if I happened to be online? I did, reasoned with them that it would free up the bed, and they issued it. He was happy, it saved a hospital bed, good result. Of course it shouldn't have needed me, but that's real life for MPs. Should I have told him to get lost when a few minutes' conversation would sort it out?
Bizarre misuse of your time. I'd probably have got involved and complained to the chief executive.
I would have, when an on-call hospital pharmacist, been very unhappy to be rung late at night for discharge medication. Unless things have changed the chance of the decision to discharge being written late at night was vanishingly small. I would probably have come in and issued it but I suspect the likes of your constituent would have complained because I was 15 or so minutes drive away and so it would have been the best part of half an hour before I’d actually got to the pharmacy.
An interesting article from Larry Elliott in the Observer re- the real level of unemployment.
'Falling unemployment has been the one bright spot in what has been a distinctly mediocre year for the economy. Harold Wilson was prime minister the last time Britain had a jobless rate as low as 4.3%.
When the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee meets this week to discuss interest rates, the state of the labour market will feature prominently. Many of the members think that the UK is at, or very close to, full employment and that any further falls in joblessness will lead to wage inflation.
We’ve been here before. The Bank thought earnings growth would start to pick up when unemployment hit 7%, 6% and 5% and was wrong every time. Nor, to be frank, is there any evidence of an imminent wage-price spiral now.
That’s because the bulk of the jobs being created are low-skill, low-wage jobs in the service sector competed for by retirees coming back into the labour market to supplement their pensions, those arriving in the UK from overseas, and former welfare claimants looking for work as a result of tougher benefit rules. The increase in the supply of labour is keeping pace with demand, keeping the lid on pay.
The lack of any real upward pay pressure is one difference between today’s labour market and that of the mid-1970s. Hidden unemployment is the other big change, as research from Sheffield Hallam University, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, shows. It concludes that the real level of unemployment is considerably higher than the officially-reported rate. If the Bank puts up interest rates this week, it won’t be because the labour market is overheating in the Welsh valleys There are two ways in which the Office for National Statistics calculates unemployment. First, there is the claimant count, which picks up the number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit: Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit. In the spring of 2017, the claimant count stood at 785,000.
But the claimant count fell out of favour in the 1980s when the then Conservative government made more than 30 changes to the way in which the claimant count was calculated, almost all of them leading to a lower total. So, greater attention was paid to a broader measure of unemployment based on criteria laid down by the International Labour Organisation. This second method states that a person is unemployed if he or she doesn’t have a job, has looked for work in the past four weeks and can start within a fortnight. This methodology tops up the claimant count with another 735,000 people giving a total of just over 1.5m.
But the Sheffield Hallam researchers say a further 760,000 should be added to the count because they are people hidden on incapacity benefits. Real unemployment, the study says, is just shy of 2.3m. Parking people on incapacity benefits was a way of keeping the official unemployment total down in the 1980s and 1990s.'
Bollocks innuendo from serial attention seeker. No names , nothing other than some Labour like mince with Corbyn and May all jumping on the bandwagon despite having been at the heart of it for 30 years now lamenting it. Odd that a patriot like you would be promoting Holyrood over your beloved Westminster sewer rats.
These things are always easier much in theory than in practice, where as you say there are thousands of people employed by MPs.
I can easily understand why an MP might appoint their spouse as a PA, for example, given the need for being away from home in London most weeks. I’m fine with that provided that they are actually working as the MP’s PA and not just banking the salary.
How many caseworkers and researchers in Westminster (as opposed to constituency offices) are looking for a career in casework or research, and how many see the job as a stepping stone to a further career? In my industry precisely no-one goes into IT to work on the helpdesk all their life - but the vast majority start there, if only as an introduction to understanding the customer.
Maybe the parties can have a pool of Parliamentary staff that can move around, .
snip.
I don't think that working away from home is the usual reason. The objective case for MPs employing spouses for 1-2 days a week is that you're expected to be able to respond to 100ish emails a day .
Hard to get re-elected, certainly in a non-safe seat, if you don't deal with modern comms.
People's expectations of MPs are off the scale these days. I know Nick has said in the past about the case work load. Personally I think this a bit bad for democracy. I want MPs who are focussed on holding the executive to account, drafting laws etc, not acting as full time social workers.
Three points, firstly all messages should be responded to, even just for politeness, that everyone and their grandparents can set up a email list means that a lot of emails are spam or a rented email list for some pressure group or other. Then there are the requests/demands for help, sent by constituents, which should be handled by the local council or relevant government department. Only a very few are actually relevant to the MP. However, because MP's have too much spare time to fill (and to be relevant to the voters) they become over paid social workers.
One argument for reducing the number of MP's, increase the staff for each, increase the importance of local government and allow them to react, within guidelines, to local priorities.
That is why they get such a shedload of expenses to hire hordes of their family to work handling the questions, yet despite double and triple dipping at the public trough they still whinge constantly about being disturbed at the subsidised bar/restaurant.
MPs are not emergency services. They are your last point of escalation. As such, there is very little in this country that shouldn't be dealt with in office hours.
Well, what do you do if you are treated as such? I was emailed by a constituent at 11pm because he
On Justin's question, I was told by older MPs that the volume of correspondence had vastly increased, not least because email made it easier. A few MPs don't do email but are regarded as eccentric old buffers. In a marginal seat, you can't afford to do anything that annoys people unless you feel some great point of princpile is involved. Anyway, I liked the direct contact, though I regretted publishing my private number - there is one apparently mad constituent who continues 7 years later to ring me every couple of weeks (I know her number and never take the call now).
Thanks for that. I am pleased to hear that some older MPs have resisted the obsessive reliance on e-mail.They can always claim to be continuing to provide the service which has served their constituents well over time , and ,by so doing, free themselves from acting as Social Workers.
It's not about obsessive reliance on email - not having one closes off a very convenient method of people to contact their MP for no reason other than allowing the MP to have a more convenient time (say someone lacks much mobility, and has no stamps but their internet still works - well tough, you cannot write up your concerns to the MP, mate, better hope it can all be explained on the phone, and that you both have time to do that). Now, it does come with the disadvantage that you will get a lot of trivial stuff sent your way too, but is avoiding that a fair trade off for limiting the means by which people can get in touch? As people are fond of saying, it is not the 50s anymore, and I'll bet those MPs who avoid using it have staff who use it to contact most colleagues and other organisations, rather than insist that sending letters, phoning and going face to face is the only way to do things.
Getting them to stop acting like social workers need not mean not using email - it means informing MPs what is their job, what is not, and letting them decide how much they want to take the sometimes difficult option of explaining that to the public, or not. Ones in marginal seats would always have to work their area damn hard regardless.
Fair enough - but at the end of the day e-mail should be seen as an option available to MPs should they wish to receive communications from constituents in this way. It is clearly not essential - as evidenced by the fact that until the mid-1990s this channel did not exist - and in my view there would be nothing wrong with an MP deciding not to use it.
An interesting article from Larry Elliott in the Observer re- the real level of unemployment.
'Falling unemployment has been the one bright spot in what has been a distinctly mediocre year for the economy. Harold Wilson was prime minister the last time Britain had a jobless rate as low as 4.3%.
When the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee meets this week to discuss interest rates, the state of the labour market will feature prominently. Many of the members think that the UK is at, or very close to, full employment and that any further falls in joblessness will lead to wage inflation.
We’ve been here before. The Bank thought earnings growth would start to pick up when unemployment hit 7%, 6% and 5% and was wrong every time. Nor, to be frank, is there any evidence of an imminent wage-price spiral now.
That’s because the bulk of the jobs being created are low-skill, low-wage jobs in the service sector competed for by retirees coming back into the labour market to supplement their pensions, those arriving in the UK from overseas, and former welfare claimants looking for work as a result of tougher benefit rules. The increase in the supply of labour is keeping pace with demand, keeping the lid on pay.
The lack of any real upward pay pressure is one difference between today’s labour market and that of the mid-1970s. Hidden unemployment is the other big change, as research from Sheffield Hallam University, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, shows. It concludes that the real level of unemployment is considerably higher than the officially-reported rate. If the Bank puts up interest rates this week, it won’t be because the labour market is overheating in the Welsh valleys There are two ways in which the Office for National Statistics calculates unemployment. First, there is the claimant count, which picks up the number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit: Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit. In the spring of 2017, the claimant count stood at 785,000.
snip
But the Sheffield Hallam researchers say a further 760,000 should be added to the count because they are people hidden on incapacity benefits. Real unemployment, the study says, is just shy of 2.3m. Parking people on incapacity benefits was a way of keeping the official unemployment total down in the 1980s and 1990s.'
But there has been a massive clamp down on sickness and disability benefits. Find it hard to believe anyone who is not really too sick to work is still on ESA, in fact the opposite, sick people are being forced to look for work. I'm sure there are some who have slipped through the system so far, but saying all 760K should be classed as unemployed is a bit odd.
There is almost no evidence of any labour shortages in our economy. This is a consequence of unlimited immigration, increased female participation in the workplace and significant underemployment amongst the self employed.
That said the number of people in paid employment is at an all time high and the government should rightly be proud of it.
We’ve been here before. The Bank thought earnings growth would start to pick up when unemployment hit 7%, 6% and 5% and was wrong every time. Nor, to be frank, is there any evidence of an imminent wage-price spiral now.
That’s because the bulk of the jobs being created are low-skill, low-wage jobs in the service sector competed for by retirees coming back into the labour market to supplement their pensions, those arriving in the UK from overseas, and former welfare claimants looking for work as a result of tougher benefit rules. The increase in the supply of labour is keeping pace with demand, keeping the lid on pay.
The lack of any real upward pay pressure is one difference between today’s labour market and that of the mid-1970s. Hidden unemployment is the other big change, as research from Sheffield Hallam University, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, shows. It concludes that the real level of unemployment is considerably higher than the officially-reported rate. If the Bank puts up interest rates this week, it won’t be because the labour market is overheating in the Welsh valleys There are two ways in which the Office for National Statistics calculates unemployment. First, there is the claimant count, which picks up the number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit: Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit. In the spring of 2017, the claimant count stood at 785,000.
snip
But the Sheffield Hallam researchers say a further 760,000 should be added to the count because they are people hidden on incapacity benefits. Real unemployment, the study says, is just shy of 2.3m. Parking people on incapacity benefits was a way of keeping the official unemployment total down in the 1980s and 1990s.'
But there has been a massive clamp down on sickness and disability benefits. Find it hard to believe anyone who is not really too sick to work is still on ESA, in fact the opposite, sick people are being forced to look for work. I'm sure there are some who have slipped through the system so far, but saying all 760K should be classed as unemployed is a bit odd.
Yes, it’s become much more difficult to be “on the sick” in recent years, which is a good thing. The biggest issue now is under-employment, so we need to get those who want a full-time job into a full-time job.
UC is really important in this, as it removes a number of arbitrary thresholds such as needing to work less than16 hours a week to receive housing benefit or tax credits. Hopefully the relevant department can sort out the short term implementation issues.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
' Despite the population becoming gradually healthier, the number on incapacity benefits rose from 750,000 at the end of the 1970s to more than 2.5 million by the end of the 1990s. Vigorous efforts have subsequently brought the total down, but not by much. The researchers say many of those claiming incapacity benefits would like to work but take a dim view of their job prospects because they feel their health is too poor or their disability is too severe, or because they think the chances of finding a job are small, especially when they are in competition with fit and healthy workers likely to catch the eye of potential employers. To be clear, the research does not say that these people are claiming incapacity benefits to which they are not entitled. But it notes that ill-health is not necessarily an insuperable barrier to holding down a job, and that the employment rate of those with a work-limiting disability depends on geography. According to official data, 44% of the 6.1 million people of working age classified as having a work-limiting disability are in employment, but the key factor is whether jobs are in short supply or hard to come by. In the northeast of England for example, the employment rate among men and women with a work-limiting disability was 37%, with similar rates for Scotland (38%), Wales (39%) and northwest England (40%). By contrast, it was 53% in the south east and 52% in the south west. The researchers calculate the level of hidden unemployment by benchmarking a town or region against what would be achievable were the local economy to be operating at full employment. As would only be expected, the highest rates of hidden unemployment are in the parts of the country where de-industrialisation has been most marked: South Wales, Merseyside, northeast England and Clydeside. In these areas, incapacity benefits can account for up to 10% of the entire working-age population. While it is the case that these are places where standards of health have long been below the national average, a generation ago the incapacity claimant rates were far lower. The good news is that hidden unemployment is coming down, from just over 1 million in 2007 to 900,000 in 2012 and now to 760,000. That means the Sheffield Hallam estimate of real unemployment has also fallen, by more than a million in the past five years. The bad news is that the total remains high and is concentrated in the regions with the weakest labour markets. Blackpool has the highest hidden unemployment on incapacity benefits, estimated at just over 7% of the town’s working population. According to the claimant count, unemployment in Blackpool is 3,760. Adding in those classified as unemployed under the ILO definition, the total comes to 4,260. Yet the study suggests a further 6,100 people are hidden unemployed, taking the total to 10,400, or 12% of the working population.'
An interesting article from Larry Elliott in the Observer re- the real level of unemployment.
-- much snippage
But the claimant count fell out of favour in the 1980s when the then Conservative government made more than 30 changes to the way in which the claimant count was calculated, almost all of them leading to a lower total.
I vaguely recall it being reported that all of the Thatcher government's adjustments lowered the count -- except one, which was immediately followed by a special adjustment to undo its increase.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
I can also spot a @Charles, @TSE or @rcs1000 comment a mile off with 90% accuracy. But I never wonder whether they are the same person!
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
I can also spot a @Charles, @TSE or @rcs1000 comment a mile off with 90% accuracy. But I never wonder whether they are the same person!
Yes, you don't need to be a thriller writer to have a distinctive writing style ;-)
One of the things I realised the other day was that the posts I often look out for on here are the people I'm probably furthest away politically. To name but a few, and there are more, I always give a Nick Palmer, Southam Observer or Rochdale Pioneers comment a very close read. There are many other posters I could name who are equally insightful but their views are much closer to mine.
What I enjoy about coming here is reading the cogent case for views that challenge my own. Which is why I am always somewhat perplexed when people come on here saying it's an echo chamber.
Mr Mueller is well aware of federal pardon power. This is why he is working with states Attorneys General. If Mr Manafort has evaded state taxes then POTUS has no pardon power regarding state crimes.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
I can also spot a @Charles, @TSE or @rcs1000 comment a mile off with 90% accuracy. But I never wonder whether they are the same person!
Would have been easier telling who you cannot spot , shorter list by far
' Despite the population becoming gradually healthier, the number on incapacity benefits rose from 750,000 at the end of the 1970s to more than 2.5 million by the end of the 1990s. Vigorous efforts have subsequently brought the total down, but not by much. The researchers say many of those claiming incapacity benefits would like to work but take a dim view of their job prospects because they feel their health is too poor or their disability is too severe, or because they think the chances of finding a job are small, especially when they are in competition with fit and healthy workers likely to catch the eye of potential employers. To be clear, the research does not say that these people are claiming incapacity benefits to which they are not entitled. But it notes that ill-health is not necessarily an insuperable barrier to holding down a job, and that the employment rate of those with a work-limiting disability depends on geography. According to official data, 44% of the 6.1 million people of working age classified as having a work-limiting disability are in employment, but the key factor is whether jobs are in short supply or hard to come by. '
Reading this, I have one worry, in that if as many are beginning to suspect that the Governments figures to not seem to have any contact with their reality and experiences, is if many are not officially working or unable to claim any benefits, how are they surviving? Charitable sources are well recorded, help from friends, relatives and neighbours, or cash in hand, or other means? And if those other means are illegal, and we are conveniently informed that contrary to reports from the actual police on the "beat"/on the front line, that the crime rate is falling dramatically.......
The article includes the words "sufficient votes to convict Trump in The House"
The House impeaches. The Senate convicts or acquits.
I had always thought 'The House' referred to Senate and Congress together, so I've learned something today. Presumably I've mixed up House with Congress, silly me.
The article includes the words "sufficient votes to convict Trump in The House"
The House impeaches. The Senate convicts or acquits.
I had always thought 'The House' referred to Senate and Congress together, so I've learned something today. Presumably I've mixed up House with Congress, silly me.
Was a typo on my part, I really shouldn't write threads at 2am.
I've always been led to believe Congress = The House of Representatives plus The Senate.
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
Fantastic post. I totally agree.
I'd agree to, but with something of a caveat. Sexual harassment might not be 'normal' behaviour, but it is certainly widespread - and the abuse of power (by either sex) is hardly abnormal, even if it is not how the majority behave. There is a reason for Lord Acton's dictum still being current well over a century after he wrote it.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
I can also spot a @Charles, @TSE or @rcs1000 comment a mile off with 90% accuracy. But I never wonder whether they are the same person!
Yes, you don't need to be a thriller writer to have a distinctive writing style ;-)
One of the things I realised the other day was that the posts I often look out for on here are the people I'm probably furthest away politically. To name but a few, and there are more, I always give a Nick Palmer, Southam Observer or Rochdale Pioneers comment a very close read. There are many other posters I could name who are equally insightful but their views are much closer to mine.
What I enjoy about coming here is reading the cogent case for views that challenge my own. Which is why I am always somewhat perplexed when people come on here saying it's an echo chamber.
I do a modified version of that. I will read the detailed comments of someone I disagree with for a certain while until I have a sense that I know what that person thinks on the particular issue (given that there is so much repetition on this site) and will then speed read rather than properly mull over.
What I have found though is that there are always new issues, and that surprisingly often, I fundamentally disagree with some people I thought I would agree with on these new issues. So with new issues, I tend to read everyone who has a track record of presenting ideas cogently.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason.
Based of something you yourself call a hypothetical absurdity .... ?
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
There might be hundreds of people all killing the same person simultaneously, like they did with JFK
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
There might be hundreds of people all killing the same person simultaneously, like they did with JFK
Or one of Agatha Christie's rather fevered scenarios. If half the population are to team up like that, I don't think any niceties of constitutional law are likely to have much of an effect.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
There might be hundreds of people all killing the same person simultaneously, like they did with JFK
It's amazing he got hit at all, as there were so many people in that book depository they kept bumping arms with each other when taking the shot.
Apart from the obvious trauma and upset caused to the victims, the other thing that bothers me about this whole discussion about sex harassment is the implicit idea that it is a normal way for men to behave. Yesterday evening there was a long discussion on here abut factors which lead to sexual harassment - primarily being in a position of power - and the idea that men who are in positions of power are more likely to abuse their female staff. But again the implication seems to be that the majority of men are ignorant asshats who are just waiting for the opportunity to abuse a woman in some way.
Sexual harassment is not normal male behaviour. There are millions and millions of men who have been brought up to respect their family, friends and colleagues and not to behave in such an unacceptable manner. They go to work every day, work with female staff, both higher and lower than them on the organisational ladder and would not for a moment think of abusing them or in any way making them feel uncomfortable at work. More than that if they do see such behaviour they are right there making it clear it is unacceptable and doing what they can to put it right.
Sexual harassment is the work of individuals too infantile or obnoxious to know the difference between right and wrong. That goes for Hollywood, Parliament and any other walk of life where they appear. But claiming it is the result of being in positions of power implies that all men would behave that way were they only in a similar position. For the vast majority of men they would not.
This is the point I was implicitly making last night when I noted that typical predictors of success are self-control and ability to delay gratification, making Weinstein's action all the more deplorable, given he was very successful and hence clearly had learnt self-control and delayed gratification along the way.
He and his ilk are not victims of evolution and their testosterone levels, as SeanT would have us believe. They are not victims period. The women they prey on are. Successful people do not typically behave like Weinstein - even most of the Lotharios cited by SeanT.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason.
Based of something you yourself call a hypothetical absurdity .... ?
If murder is that mainstream, the murderers would not need the prisoner vote to win elections. They will be a clear majority of the population, having killed most of the non-murderers.
Agreed, I do that too. The frequency of paragraph breaks is one tell - e.g. SeanT always has short ones, with a punchline at the end. kle4 is almost always patiently judicious in one long paragraph. Sean Fear is rarely more than 3 lines. Yours are usually 3-4 paras, but you're harder than most to guess because although you're a LibDem in general you think out each issue and one can't always predict what you'll think - a good thing.
I used to know a (Danish) Supreme Court Judge who only read a newspaper he disagreed with, to keep him on his toes. I tried that for a bit, only reading the Mail, but it just got depressing. Reading anyone with a coherent argument here, ideally not too predictable, seems the way to go.
Agreed, I do that too. The frequency of paragraph breaks is one tell - e.g. SeanT always has short ones, with a punchline at the end. kle4 is almost always patiently judicious in one long paragraph. .
The key is to bamboozle people with length, inserts and tangential parentheticals so they assume you must be talking sense but are too confused to rebut the argument!
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason.
Based of something you yourself call a hypothetical absurdity .... ?
If murder is that mainstream, the murderers would not need the prisoner vote to win elections. They will be a clear majority of the population, having killed most of the non-murderers.
Actually that's not at all guaranteed. The murderers could be killing other murderers and thus reducing the proportion of the population that are murderers.
If you think about it most gang violence is aimed at other gangsters. Disproportionately violence by one race is aimed at other members of the same race. Etc - odds are the murderers would be disproportionately killing murderers.
@Nigelb Yep, I agree with all the points you’ve made as well. The Weinstein scandal has led to a wider debate on issues of sexual assault and sexual harassment in the work place, and had demonstrated that it is still a big issue that we must tackle. Hopefully, victims feel more confident in coming forward.
Saw a snippet of the Sunday Politics. Apparently Theresa May is thinking of giving some prisoners the vote.
.....
She's bloody daft, if that's true.
Prison removes liberty. It doesn’t remove all their rights.
Let us consider a hypothetical, albeit absurd situation where prisoners retain the right to vote.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it. Killing,stabbing, shooting, poisoning, and so on. (I told you the example was absurd). Those people are then incarcerated.
A spivvy type enters politics and says it is a disgrace that people are being incarcerated for a crime that's really a social norm (speeding, smoking marijuana, etc, would fall into this category). He stands on a "make murder legal" platform. Now, said spiv doesn't have to become PM and legalise killing, he just has to worry the MPs in marginal constituencies enough that the murderer vote is going to go the other way and suddenly we get a referendum on murder, or vastly reduced lenient sentencing, or whatever.
The point is that voting is effectively _the very first part_ of making the law, therefore those who transgress it should have no part in it. I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason. Once they are out and have served their time, different story. But those being punished for the breaking of the law should have no part in the making of it.
Murder goes mainstream. Half the population are at it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason.
Based of something you yourself call a hypothetical absurdity .... ?
If murder is that mainstream, the murderers would not need the prisoner vote to win elections. They will be a clear majority of the population, having killed most of the non-murderers.
Actually that's not at all guaranteed. The murderers could be killing other murderers and thus reducing the proportion of the population that are murderers.
If you think about it most gang violence is aimed at other gangsters. Disproportionately violence by one race is aimed at other members of the same race. Etc - odds are the murderers would be disproportionately killing murderers.
I accept your point as a possible scenario. But the statistics don't bear that out. Lots of murders are committed in the course of committing another crime, but gangland murders are a smallish percentage:
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
Mr Glenn and I have radically different views, so I'm a bit perplexed at this comment.
I do a similar thing with any Brexit post. I can spot an Alastair Meeks or WilliamGlenn comment a mile off. To the point where (and I know they're not, this is purely hyperbole and I speak only in jest) I do sometimes wonder if they're the same person.
Mr Glenn and I have radically different views, so I'm a bit perplexed at this comment.
Comments
On point 2, yes you may indeed be able to help (even in other jobs, someone with a generic interest across a multitude of departments can be a great help as they know enough about many issues) - but the critical point was that in almost all cases of emergency you probably cannot, or trying to interfere in an emergency situation might be unhelpful, or it is not something that is in fact an emergency and can wait until morning.
Granted, you are the one who has actually experienced the role, but an MP might be knackered and go to bed at 10pm one night, and someone in an emergency won't be helped after then regardless and people have to know that, even if an MP will do their utmost to help if they do pick up.
You get it similarly with local councillors - I know one who would be called up at 11pm on a Sunday because of dog crap, and I'm sure you've had similar communication. You wouldn't respond to that, of course, so even if we accept an MP will want to help if they see a query late at night, which things can they help with, and which things would be counter productive to try something now and would have been better directed at a genuine emergency service and at what point would an MP calling it a night be of better help?
Also, speaking from the low levels, something that can truly annoy people is when someone in authority, be it a senior manager or an elected representative, blunders their way into what may be a complicated situation or one with immutable processes and insists upon immediate attention because they are a councillor/mp/senior manager. Now, I think to a certain degree all those roles may have the right to make inquiries, even inconvenient ones, but incorrectly thinking something is an emergency and not going through the proper channels can just make things worse, and people won't always know when that is. Often is the time I've had someone fairly senior worried about something a member of the public has managed to raise with them directly, whole meetings called to sort this mess out, and when they finally speak to the person dealing with it they find out, whoops, it's the law/already being dealt with/etc, and much time was wasted.
I would probably have come in and issued it but I suspect the likes of your constituent would have complained because I was 15 or so minutes drive away and so it would have been the best part of half an hour before I’d actually got to the pharmacy.
'Falling unemployment has been the one bright spot in what has been a distinctly mediocre year for the economy. Harold Wilson was prime minister the last time Britain had a jobless rate as low as 4.3%.
When the Bank of England’s monetary policy committee meets this week to discuss interest rates, the state of the labour market will feature prominently. Many of the members think that the UK is at, or very close to, full employment and that any further falls in joblessness will lead to wage inflation.
We’ve been here before. The Bank thought earnings growth would start to pick up when unemployment hit 7%, 6% and 5% and was wrong every time. Nor, to be frank, is there any evidence of an imminent wage-price spiral now.
That’s because the bulk of the jobs being created are low-skill, low-wage jobs in the service sector competed for by retirees coming back into the labour market to supplement their pensions, those arriving in the UK from overseas, and former welfare claimants looking for work as a result of tougher benefit rules. The increase in the supply of labour is keeping pace with demand, keeping the lid on pay.
The lack of any real upward pay pressure is one difference between today’s labour market and that of the mid-1970s. Hidden unemployment is the other big change, as research from Sheffield Hallam University, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, shows. It concludes that the real level of unemployment is considerably higher than the officially-reported rate.
If the Bank puts up interest rates this week, it won’t be because the labour market is overheating in the Welsh valleys
There are two ways in which the Office for National Statistics calculates unemployment. First, there is the claimant count, which picks up the number of people out of work and claiming unemployment benefit: Jobseeker’s Allowance or Universal Credit. In the spring of 2017, the claimant count stood at 785,000.
But the claimant count fell out of favour in the 1980s when the then Conservative government made more than 30 changes to the way in which the claimant count was calculated, almost all of them leading to a lower total. So, greater attention was paid to a broader measure of unemployment based on criteria laid down by the International Labour Organisation. This second method states that a person is unemployed if he or she doesn’t have a job, has looked for work in the past four weeks and can start within a fortnight. This methodology tops up the claimant count with another 735,000 people giving a total of just over 1.5m.
But the Sheffield Hallam researchers say a further 760,000 should be added to the count because they are people hidden on incapacity benefits. Real unemployment, the study says, is just shy of 2.3m.
Parking people on incapacity benefits was a way of keeping the official unemployment total down in the 1980s and 1990s.'
Odd that a patriot like you would be promoting Holyrood over your beloved Westminster sewer rats.
http://enormo-haddock.blogspot.co.uk/2017/10/mexico-pre-race-2017.html
That said the number of people in paid employment is at an all time high and the government should rightly be proud of it.
With some, I'm correct at least 95% of the time (e.g. @SeanT, @MalcolmG, @Ave).
It keeps me amused as winter approaches.
(In some cases prediction is situational I imagine - aha, a reference to the second punic war, big clue),
UC is really important in this, as it removes a number of arbitrary thresholds such as needing to work less than16 hours a week to receive housing benefit or tax credits. Hopefully the relevant department can sort out the short term implementation issues.
' Despite the population becoming gradually healthier, the number on incapacity benefits rose from 750,000 at the end of the 1970s to more than 2.5 million by the end of the 1990s. Vigorous efforts have subsequently brought the total down, but not by much.
The researchers say many of those claiming incapacity benefits would like to work but take a dim view of their job prospects because they feel their health is too poor or their disability is too severe, or because they think the chances of finding a job are small, especially when they are in competition with fit and healthy workers likely to catch the eye of potential employers.
To be clear, the research does not say that these people are claiming incapacity benefits to which they are not entitled. But it notes that ill-health is not necessarily an insuperable barrier to holding down a job, and that the employment rate of those with a work-limiting disability depends on geography.
According to official data, 44% of the 6.1 million people of working age classified as having a work-limiting disability are in employment, but the key factor is whether jobs are in short supply or hard to come by.
In the northeast of England for example, the employment rate among men and women with a work-limiting disability was 37%, with similar rates for Scotland (38%), Wales (39%) and northwest England (40%). By contrast, it was 53% in the south east and 52% in the south west.
The researchers calculate the level of hidden unemployment by benchmarking a town or region against what would be achievable were the local economy to be operating at full employment. As would only be expected, the highest rates of hidden unemployment are in the parts of the country where de-industrialisation has been most marked: South Wales, Merseyside, northeast England and Clydeside. In these areas, incapacity benefits can account for up to 10% of the entire working-age population. While it is the case that these are places where standards of health have long been below the national average, a generation ago the incapacity claimant rates were far lower.
The good news is that hidden unemployment is coming down, from just over 1 million in 2007 to 900,000 in 2012 and now to 760,000. That means the Sheffield Hallam estimate of real unemployment has also fallen, by more than a million in the past five years.
The bad news is that the total remains high and is concentrated in the regions with the weakest labour markets. Blackpool has the highest hidden unemployment on incapacity benefits, estimated at just over 7% of the town’s working population. According to the claimant count, unemployment in Blackpool is 3,760. Adding in those classified as unemployed under the ILO definition, the total comes to 4,260. Yet the study suggests a further 6,100 people are hidden unemployed, taking the total to 10,400, or 12% of the working population.'
How do these companies allow computers to copy sensitive stuff to unencrypted memory sticks?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/10/29/heathrow-investigates-queens-security-details-found-usb-drive/
One of the things I realised the other day was that the posts I often look out for on here are the people I'm probably furthest away politically. To name but a few, and there are more, I always give a Nick Palmer, Southam Observer or Rochdale Pioneers comment a very close read. There are many other posters I could name who are equally insightful but their views are much closer to mine.
What I enjoy about coming here is reading the cogent case for views that challenge my own. Which is why I am always somewhat perplexed when people come on here saying it's an echo chamber.
The House impeaches. The Senate convicts or acquits.
I've always been led to believe Congress = The House of Representatives plus The Senate.
Sexual harassment might not be 'normal' behaviour, but it is certainly widespread - and the abuse of power (by either sex) is hardly abnormal, even if it is not how the majority behave.
There is a reason for Lord Acton's dictum still being current well over a century after he wrote it.
Can he make it six from six?
What I have found though is that there are always new issues, and that surprisingly often, I fundamentally disagree with some people I thought I would agree with on these new issues. So with new issues, I tend to read everyone who has a track record of presenting ideas cogently.
I think he might do it.
That wouldn't leave you with much of a population...
I am against giving prisoners any voting rights for that reason.
Based of something you yourself call a hypothetical absurdity .... ?
If half the population are to team up like that, I don't think any niceties of constitutional law are likely to have much of an effect.
He and his ilk are not victims of evolution and their testosterone levels, as SeanT would have us believe. They are not victims period. The women they prey on are. Successful people do not typically behave like Weinstein - even most of the Lotharios cited by SeanT.
I used to know a (Danish) Supreme Court Judge who only read a newspaper he disagreed with, to keep him on his toes. I tried that for a bit, only reading the Mail, but it just got depressing. Reading anyone with a coherent argument here, ideally not too predictable, seems the way to go.
But thank you.
If you think about it most gang violence is aimed at other gangsters. Disproportionately violence by one race is aimed at other members of the same race. Etc - odds are the murderers would be disproportionately killing murderers.
NEW THREAD
https://hubpages.com/politics/why_do_people_get_murdered
Of the nearly 15,000 murders in this study, 177 were gang murders, i.e. about 1%.
The sports presenter is the subject of one of multiple allegations of harassment currently being handled by the BBC"
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2017/oct/29/bbc-radio-5-lives-george-riley-suspended-after-sexual-harassment-complaints