Following yesterday's debate about what if anything ' austerity ' is the new MP for Peterborough makes her first mark. This is a classic example of the invisible bit 9f the welfare safety net disappearing. ' Invisible ' in it's delivered in a non universalised way by local councils who had huge central cuts outsourced to them.
As an aside, here in deepest Leaverstan , we had two ' Uniform Banks ' launch in the last two years and one ' pay what you can afford ' pop up uniform shop using donated stock.
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
It's a right fiddle, especially as even if you want a brand they will not allow a generic jumper which you can sew the brand on yourself.
It makes me suspicious toward the trend in my parts toward more blazer style uniforms - they do look smarter, which I like, but it seems like it makes it that much harder for a generic uniform to be possible, and they cost more to the parent to boot.
It's not just the blazers, or the badges. It's also the tendency for pointless details, like coloured piping. Some of it is about the cosy school-clothes shop nexus. Worse is the way that some schools use expensive uniforms to manipulate their intake.
I’ve heard of one secondary school in South West London that only allows pupils to wear a coat if it is the official school coat costing £35.
Locally all the secondary schools all require mandatory tartan skirts (the schools all use different tartans).
Who runs the LEA? Gary Glitter?
Round here they are all academies and have been since as soon as LEA schools were allowed to escape local authority control.
A dozen British officials led by Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, were in talks with the European commission’s Brexit taskforce on Sunday but sources in Brussels downplayed the possibility of a major breakthrough.
“A Northern Ireland-only backstop as proposed by the EU in February 2018 could be landed by the European council on Thursday – anything else will not,” said one diplomatic source.
EU officials have privately warned that at best a “technical extension” taking the UK’s membership of the bloc beyond 31 October will be necessary to work through the details of Johnson’s new approach to the issue of customs.
Speaking on Sunday, Ireland's agriculture minister Michael Creed, a senior member of Varadkar’s cabinet, said: There are very significant issues to be addressed here. We are not there yet.”
The running commentary from the various sides doesn't help - in fact it seems to actively hinder - and won't impact MP or EU decisions, so why do they even bother? Telling us there are significant issues or that talks were productive, or other cliches, it's just so silly.
If that report is accurate, they seem to be telling is that there will be no deal struck by Saturday.
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
In my patch at least it seemed a total racket that I tried to get changed together with a local UKIP activist (who was a celebrated local character - did a charity parachute jump aged 90). The local uniform shop had a monopoly and you HAD to buy uniforms from them. They gave schools a % of the price (10% I think), and of course the schools were glad of the funds. A local shop produced an absolutely identical one at a quarter of the price, but kids who wore it would be sent home by the schools if it was spotted. I reported it to the Monopolies Commission and Trading Standards, each of whom said "Not our problem".
That is utterly disgraceful. Good on you and the UKIP activist for putting aside party politics to try and do the right thing.
My daughter left KGGS in Grantham (Mrs T's old school) in June to go to University. She still has friends at the school and has heard the new headmaster has caused a lot of anger with two decisions. He has decided that 6th formers have to wear school uniform where previously they had a smart but non uniform dress code. More importantly he has changed the colour of the whole school's uniform. Many parents rely on being able to buy uniforms from older pupils, especially as kids grow so fast in their early to mid teens and much of the uniform is too small long before it is worn out. Really really stupid ideas.
Grandson 2 has just (September) started his A level years at a grammar school in Kent. The VIth formers.... that's what I call them anyway..... have to wear business suits. Looks very smart. I suspect that if/when he gets to Uni the suit will be abandoned, of course.
Any form of enforced dress code for sixth-formers is deplorable - it should be a time of freedom, maturity and self-expression.
A dozen British officials led by Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, were in talks with the European commission’s Brexit taskforce on Sunday but sources in Brussels downplayed the possibility of a major breakthrough.
“A Northern Ireland-only backstop as proposed by the EU in February 2018 could be landed by the European council on Thursday – anything else will not,” said one diplomatic source.
EU officials have privately warned that at best a “technical extension” taking the UK’s membership of the bloc beyond 31 October will be necessary to work through the details of Johnson’s new approach to the issue of customs.
Speaking on Sunday, Ireland's agriculture minister Michael Creed, a senior member of Varadkar’s cabinet, said: There are very significant issues to be addressed here. We are not there yet.”
The running commentary from the various sides doesn't help - in fact it seems to actively hinder - and won't impact MP or EU decisions, so why do they even bother? Telling us there are significant issues or that talks were productive, or other cliches, it's just so silly.
If that report is accurate, they seem to be telling is that there will be no deal struck by Saturday.
Or, indeed, that even if a deal is struck, it will require a couple of extra weeks to dot all the i's.
Following yesterday's debate about what if anything ' austerity ' is the new MP for Peterborough makes her first mark. This is a classic example of the invisible bit 9f the welfare safety net disappearing. ' Invisible ' in it's delivered in a non universalised way by local councils who had huge central cuts outsourced to them.
As an aside, here in deepest Leaverstan , we had two ' Uniform Banks ' launch in the last two years and one ' pay what you can afford ' pop up uniform shop using donated stock.
At my school the parents (with support from the school) organised a second hand uniform store.
Buy a item for £10, sell an item for £5, or swap like for like
As did mine, the ‘thrift shop’ run by the PTA and given a small store room by the school. Surprised that every school doesn’t have something similar.
A dozen British officials led by Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, were in talks with the European commission’s Brexit taskforce on Sunday but sources in Brussels downplayed the possibility of a major breakthrough.
“A Northern Ireland-only backstop as proposed by the EU in February 2018 could be landed by the European council on Thursday – anything else will not,” said one diplomatic source.
EU officials have privately warned that at best a “technical extension” taking the UK’s membership of the bloc beyond 31 October will be necessary to work through the details of Johnson’s new approach to the issue of customs.
Speaking on Sunday, Ireland's agriculture minister Michael Creed, a senior member of Varadkar’s cabinet, said: There are very significant issues to be addressed here. We are not there yet.”
The running commentary from the various sides doesn't help - in fact it seems to actively hinder - and won't impact MP or EU decisions, so why do they even bother? Telling us there are significant issues or that talks were productive, or other cliches, it's just so silly.
If that report is accurate, they seem to be telling is that there will be no deal struck by Saturday.
Unsurprising, if you stop and think about it. The original plan for A50 was 18 months talking, and six months for everyone involved to sign off on the deal. Admittedly, the clock didn't start from zero last week, and it's amazing what can be done when time is tight, but the idea of having a deal signed off in the next 6 days, to come into force in just over a fortnight... It would be quick, which doesn't inspire confidence that it would be good.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
Following yesterday's debate about what if anything ' austerity ' is the new MP for Peterborough makes her first mark. This is a classic example of the invisible bit 9f the welfare safety net disappearing. ' Invisible ' in it's delivered in a non universalised way by local councils who had huge central cuts outsourced to them.
As an aside, here in deepest Leaverstan , we had two ' Uniform Banks ' launch in the last two years and one ' pay what you can afford ' pop up uniform shop using donated stock.
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
It's a right fiddle, especially as even if you want a brand they will not allow a generic jumper which you can sew the brand on yourself.
It makes me suspicious toward the trend in my parts toward more blazer style uniforms - they do look smarter, which I like, but it seems like it makes it that much harder for a generic uniform to be possible, and they cost more to the parent to boot.
A dozen British officials led by Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, were in talks with the European commission’s Brexit taskforce on Sunday but sources in Brussels downplayed the possibility of a major breakthrough.
“A Northern Ireland-only backstop as proposed by the EU in February 2018 could be landed by the European council on Thursday – anything else will not,” said one diplomatic source.
EU officials have privately warned that at best a “technical extension” taking the UK’s membership of the bloc beyond 31 October will be necessary to work through the details of Johnson’s new approach to the issue of customs.
Speaking on Sunday, Ireland's agriculture minister Michael Creed, a senior member of Varadkar’s cabinet, said: There are very significant issues to be addressed here. We are not there yet.”
The running commentary from the various sides doesn't help - in fact it seems to actively hinder - and won't impact MP or EU decisions, so why do they even bother? Telling us there are significant issues or that talks were productive, or other cliches, it's just so silly.
If that report is accurate, they seem to be telling is that there will be no deal struck by Saturday.
Unsurprising, if you stop and think about it. The original plan for A50 was 18 months talking, and six months for everyone involved to sign off on the deal. Admittedly, the clock didn't start from zero last week, and it's amazing what can be done when time is tight, but the idea of having a deal signed off in the next 6 days, to come into force in just over a fortnight... It would be quick, which doesn't inspire confidence that it would be good.
Schools choose expensive uniforms to broadcast social status. Grants encourage others to copy the signal. The cost for poor parents goes up - albeit paid for by the grant. The result is the welfare state paying for pointless social status signalling.
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
In my patch at least it seemed a total racket that I tried to get changed together with a local UKIP activist (who was a celebrated local character - did a charity parachute jump aged 90). The local uniform shop had a monopoly and you HAD to buy uniforms from them. They gave schools a % of the price (10% I think), and of course the schools were glad of the funds. A local shop produced an absolutely identical one at a quarter of the price, but kids who wore it would be sent home by the schools if it was spotted. I reported it to the Monopolies Commission and Trading Standards, each of whom said "Not our problem".
That is utterly disgraceful. Good on you and the UKIP activist for putting aside party politics to try and do the right thing.
My daughter left KGGS in Grantham (Mrs T's old school) in June to go to University. She still has friends at the school and has heard the new headmaster has caused a lot of anger with two decisions. He has decided that 6th formers have to wear school uniform where previously they had a smart but non uniform dress code. More importantly he has changed the colour of the whole school's uniform. Many parents rely on being able to buy uniforms from older pupils, especially as kids grow so fast in their early to mid teens and much of the uniform is too small long before it is worn out. Really really stupid ideas.
Grandson 2 has just (September) started his A level years at a grammar school in Kent. The VIth formers.... that's what I call them anyway..... have to wear business suits. Looks very smart. I suspect that if/when he gets to Uni the suit will be abandoned, of course.
Any form of enforced dress code for sixth-formers is deplorable - it should be a time of freedom, maturity and self-expression.
My daughters school doesn’t have a uniform policy
Other parents - and it is always parents not kids - comment on her fondness for wearing a skirt with leggings
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
In my patch at least it seemed a total racket that I tried to get changed together with a local UKIP activist (who was a celebrated local character - did a charity parachute jump aged 90). The local uniform shop had a monopoly and you HAD to buy uniforms from them. They gave schools a % of the price (10% I think), and of course the schools were glad of the funds. A local shop produced an absolutely identical one at a quarter of the price, but kids who wore it would be sent home by the schools if it was spotted. I reported it to the Monopolies Commission and Trading Standards, each of whom said "Not our problem".
That is utterly disgraceful. Good on you and the UKIP activist for putting aside party politics to try and do the right thing.
My daughter left KGGS in Grantham (Mrs T's old school) in June to go to University. She still has friends at the school and has heard the new headmaster has caused a lot of anger with two decisions. He has decided that 6th formers have to wear school uniform where previously they had a smart but non uniform dress code. More importantly he has changed the colour of the whole school's uniform. Many parents rely on being able to buy uniforms from older pupils, especially as kids grow so fast in their early to mid teens and much of the uniform is too small long before it is worn out. Really really stupid ideas.
Grandson 2 has just (September) started his A level years at a grammar school in Kent. The VIth formers.... that's what I call them anyway..... have to wear business suits. Looks very smart. I suspect that if/when he gets to Uni the suit will be abandoned, of course.
Any form of enforced dress code for sixth-formers is deplorable - it should be a time of freedom, maturity and self-expression.
Schools choose expensive uniforms to broadcast social status. Grants encourage others to copy the signal. The cost for poor parents goes up - albeit paid for by the grant. The result is the welfare state paying for pointless social status signalling.
State school also often benefit from kickbacks from uniform shops. It's a small but useful source of income. (That comes straight from the pockets of poorer parents.)
If you outlawed the practise of uniform shops kicking back money to schools, then schools would suddenly find that they were a lot more flexible about exactly where you bought your jumper from. (And the incentive to regularlt change/update uniforms would disappear.)
KS Too Boring Too Liberal Elite Too Right Wing finishes 3rd at best ET Too Liberal Elite Too out of touch with non remain London Elites Gone from top2 to outside top 2 YC Most right wing on list Next times Liz 4% Kendall LN Too disloyal to JC finishes nearer bottom than top AR More in touch than those above. Some right wing views 2nd or 3rd RLB Once the likely successor could still win or more likely 2nd LP Favourite IMO Current Dead Heat with RLB but star on rise and after GE likely winner
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
KS Too Boring Too Liberal Elite Too Right Wing finishes 3rd at best ET Too Liberal Elite Too out of touch with non remain London Elites Gone from top2 to outside top 2 YC Most right wing on list Next times Liz 4% Kendall LN Too disloyal to JC finishes nearer bottom than top AR More in touch than those above. Some right wing views 2nd or 3rd RLB Once the likely successor could still win or more likely 2nd LP Favourite IMO Current Dead Heat with RLB but star on rise and after GE likely winner
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
In my patch at least it seemed a total racket that I tried to get changed together with a local UKIP activist (who was a celebrated local character - did a charity parachute jump aged 90). The local uniform shop had a monopoly and you HAD to buy uniforms from them. They gave schools a % of the price (10% I think), and of course the schools were glad of the funds. A local shop produced an absolutely identical one at a quarter of the price, but kids who wore it would be sent home by the schools if it was spotted. I reported it to the Monopolies Commission and Trading Standards, each of whom said "Not our problem".
That is utterly disgraceful. Good on you and the UKIP activist for putting aside party politics to try and do the right thing.
My daughter left KGGS in Grantham (Mrs T's old school) in June to go to University. She still has friends at the school and has heard the new headmaster has caused a lot of anger with two decisions. He has decided that 6th formers have to wear school uniform where previously they had a smart but non uniform dress code. More importantly he has changed the colour of the whole school's uniform. Many parents rely on being able to buy uniforms from older pupils, especially as kids grow so fast in their early to mid teens and much of the uniform is too small long before it is worn out. Really really stupid ideas.
Grandson 2 has just (September) started his A level years at a grammar school in Kent. The VIth formers.... that's what I call them anyway..... have to wear business suits. Looks very smart. I suspect that if/when he gets to Uni the suit will be abandoned, of course.
Any form of enforced dress code for sixth-formers is deplorable - it should be a time of freedom, maturity and self-expression.
My daughters school doesn’t have a uniform policy
Other parents - and it is always parents not kids - comment on her fondness for wearing a skirt with leggings
It strikes me as very practical on a cold day!
My daughter is also very keen on the leggings with skirt look: it manages to be practical and allow for a wide range of colours and styles.
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She's great. She did the best demolition job ob Boris Johnson I've heard. With her authentic Birmingham twang "He's just a liar. Just a complete liar. That's all there is to be said". I believed her. She's a rare thing in the Labour Party at the moment. She sounds straight talking and authentic.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
Btw was there much discussion here on the far-right terrorsist attack on the German synagogue? The attacker killing some Muslims after being denied the chance to kill some Jews seems the logical (sic) next step for these kind of people.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
I'm not sure I agree. Why would a talentless person fare better in a junior ministerial role? The workload would potentially be the same or higher.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
There's something wrong with uniforms costing £300.
My daughter's school uniform was purchased at Asda and cost about £30 for the whole year.
There's no reason uniforms need to be expensive or branded. Cheap, generic uniforms are easily available and are surely a better solution than grants.
In my patch at least it seemed a total racket that I tried to get changed together with a local UKIP activist (who was a celebrated local character - did a charity parachute jump aged 90). The local uniform shop had a monopoly and you HAD to buy uniforms from them. They gave schools a % of the price (10% I think), and of course the schools were glad of the funds. A local shop produced an absolutely identical one at a quarter of the price, but kids who wore it would be sent home by the schools if it was spotted. I reported it to the Monopolies Commission and Trading Standards, each of whom said "Not our problem".
That is utterly disgraceful. Good on you and the UKIP activist for putting aside party politics to try and do the right thing.
My daughter left KGGS in Grantham (Mrs T's old school) in June to go to University. She still has friends at the school and has heard the new headmaster has caused a lot of anger with two decisions. He has decided that 6th formers have to wear school uniform where previously they had a smart but non uniform dress code. More importantly he has changed the colour of the whole school's uniform. Many parents rely on being able to buy uniforms from older pupils, especially as kids grow so fast in their early to mid teens and much of the uniform is too small long before it is worn out. Really really stupid ideas.
Grandson 2 has just (September) started his A level years at a grammar school in Kent. The VIth formers.... that's what I call them anyway..... have to wear business suits. Looks very smart. I suspect that if/when he gets to Uni the suit will be abandoned, of course.
Any form of enforced dress code for sixth-formers is deplorable - it should be a time of freedom, maturity and self-expression.
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She is a narcissist and a pathological liar.
Tories would love her.
Not just a liar, but a pathological liar? How interesting.
She confuses crudity and making an impact
She’s someone I have very little time. I personally find Stella Creasy irritating, but she’s absolutely a heavy weight while Jess Philips is not
I find some of her comments direct and entertaining, but I have no grasp of how much it is just an act, or just talk on twitter as a substitute for doing things. If she lives up to her words then great.
KS Too Boring Too Liberal Elite Too Right Wing finishes 3rd at best ET Too Liberal Elite Too out of touch with non remain London Elites Gone from top2 to outside top 2 YC Most right wing on list Next times Liz 4% Kendall LN Too disloyal to JC finishes nearer bottom than top AR More in touch than those above. Some right wing views 2nd or 3rd RLB Once the likely successor could still win or more likely 2nd LP Favourite IMO Current Dead Heat with RLB but star on rise and after GE likely winner
Beyond belief that this might really happen.
She's 32 for a start. Crazy.
The last Chancellor of Austria was 31 on appointment.
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She is a narcissist and a pathological liar.
Tories would love her.
Not just a liar, but a pathological liar? How interesting.
She confuses crudity and making an impact
She’s someone I have very little time. I personally find Stella Creasy irritating, but she’s absolutely a heavy weight while Jess Philips is not
I don't particularly think she crosses the line on "crudity" in interviews etc (there are reports of her being a bit swear-y in private, but no more so than a lot of us). I can also see that quite a few people would find her way of expressing herself more in line with how they'd speak with family and friends, and hence more relatable.
I don't, though, see her as a particularly good choice for leader at this time. She has a bit of a "rent-a-gob" quality (not unlike her fellow Birmingham MP - many years ago - Anthony Beaumont Dark). She also has the luxury of shooting from the hip as a backbencher who has not held a job where she needs to hold together a range of colleagues with a range of views (indeed, that mirrors some of the problems of Corbyn in many ways).
Personally, I think a new leader would do well to promote her and see if she can keep her relatability/likeability whilst holding a brief and managing her colleagues. If she can, she's plenty young enough to be next leader but one.
The point is also moot - she's got too many important enemies to win it now.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
She was described by Alan Duncan as the worst Tory Minister there has ever been or similar on the the very watchable ''Tories at War''
A dozen British officials led by Johnson’s chief negotiator, David Frost, were in talks with the European commission’s Brexit taskforce on Sunday but sources in Brussels downplayed the possibility of a major breakthrough.
“A Northern Ireland-only backstop as proposed by the EU in February 2018 could be landed by the European council on Thursday – anything else will not,” said one diplomatic source.
EU officials have privately warned that at best a “technical extension” taking the UK’s membership of the bloc beyond 31 October will be necessary to work through the details of Johnson’s new approach to the issue of customs.
Speaking on Sunday, Ireland's agriculture minister Michael Creed, a senior member of Varadkar’s cabinet, said: There are very significant issues to be addressed here. We are not there yet.”
The running commentary from the various sides doesn't help - in fact it seems to actively hinder - and won't impact MP or EU decisions, so why do they even bother? Telling us there are significant issues or that talks were productive, or other cliches, it's just so silly.
If that report is accurate, they seem to be telling is that there will be no deal struck by Saturday.
Unsurprising, if you stop and think about it. The original plan for A50 was 18 months talking, and six months for everyone involved to sign off on the deal. Admittedly, the clock didn't start from zero last week, and it's amazing what can be done when time is tight, but the idea of having a deal signed off in the next 6 days, to come into force in just over a fortnight... It would be quick, which doesn't inspire confidence that it would be good.
But what about all the Brexit 50ps Javid's had minted with 31st October 2019 on them?
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She's great. She did the best demolition job ob Boris Johnson I've heard. With her authentic Birmingham twang "He's just a liar. Just a complete liar. That's all there is to be said". I believed her. She's a rare thing in the Labour Party at the moment. She sounds straight talking and authentic.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
Schools choose expensive uniforms to broadcast social status. Grants encourage others to copy the signal. The cost for poor parents goes up - albeit paid for by the grant. The result is the welfare state paying for pointless social status signalling.
State school also often benefit from kickbacks from uniform shops. It's a small but useful source of income. (That comes straight from the pockets of poorer parents.)
If you outlawed the practise of uniform shops kicking back money to schools, then schools would suddenly find that they were a lot more flexible about exactly where you bought your jumper from. (And the incentive to regularlt change/update uniforms would disappear.)
It would help a bit, though there are other factors as well. One is that teachers and headteachers, splendid people though they are, can be easily over-impressed by a really smart uniform. There is something genuinely impressive about a thousand pupils immaculately turned out, which only works with a single supplier.
The other issue is that really uniform uniforms do work as a petty but non-trivial lever to improve a school. Part of the point of branding trousers and skirts is to ensure the cut is more suitable for the academy than for helping a politician with his IT problems. It acts as a positive advert for the school. Also, unfortunately, some schools do seem to use the cost of their uniform as a discreet but definite way of discouraging some families from applying.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
I'm not sure I agree. Why would a talentless person fare better in a junior ministerial role? The workload would potentially be the same or higher.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
I don't think she's talentless, just that she doesn't realise the import of her actions, and that she is (how to put this) more focused on her general importance than on the job at hand.
The holiday to Israel that was actually work (or was it) followed by lying was a classic example of this. And I think it's following over into her role as Home Secretary. So, she feels she has to go on these TV shows because it's what an ambitious Home Secretary does, but she's also stressed and trying to remember her brief, and comes across a bit wrong.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She's great. She did the best demolition job ob Boris Johnson I've heard. With her authentic Birmingham twang "He's just a liar. Just a complete liar. That's all there is to be said". I believed her. She's a rare thing in the Labour Party at the moment. She sounds straight talking and authentic.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
KS Too Boring Too Liberal Elite Too Right Wing finishes 3rd at best ET Too Liberal Elite Too out of touch with non remain London Elites Gone from top2 to outside top 2 YC Most right wing on list Next times Liz 4% Kendall LN Too disloyal to JC finishes nearer bottom than top AR More in touch than those above. Some right wing views 2nd or 3rd RLB Once the likely successor could still win or more likely 2nd LP Favourite IMO Current Dead Heat with RLB but star on rise and after GE likely winner
Schools choose expensive uniforms to broadcast social status. Grants encourage others to copy the signal. The cost for poor parents goes up - albeit paid for by the grant. The result is the welfare state paying for pointless social status signalling.
State school also often benefit from kickbacks from uniform shops. It's a small but useful source of income. (That comes straight from the pockets of poorer parents.)
If you outlawed the practise of uniform shops kicking back money to schools, then schools would suddenly find that they were a lot more flexible about exactly where you bought your jumper from. (And the incentive to regularlt change/update uniforms would disappear.)
It would help a bit, though there are other factors as well. One is that teachers and headteachers, splendid people though they are, can be easily over-impressed by a really smart uniform. There is something genuinely impressive about a thousand pupils immaculately turned out, which only works with a single supplier.
The other issue is that really uniform uniforms do work as a petty but non-trivial lever to improve a school. Part of the point of branding trousers and skirts is to ensure the cut is more suitable for the academy than for helping a politician with his IT problems. It acts as a positive advert for the school. Also, unfortunately, some schools do seem to use the cost of their uniform as a discreet but definite way of discouraging some families from applying.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
I'm not sure I agree. Why would a talentless person fare better in a junior ministerial role? The workload would potentially be the same or higher.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
Did RCS say "talentless"? I think she might well be, in fact, but even a talented person probably needs to develop some of the skills you need in a very high pressure job in a less high pressure one.
On workload of a junior vs cabinet minister, if you mean "hours" then I am not sure which has a bigger workload - probably the cabinet minister, but possibly not.
But is it sensible to look at it in terms of hours? There are plenty of jobs with long hours that aren't especially high pressure. The pressure of high office comes from the fact most of your decisions are scrutinised intensely, and the stakes are high for you and everyone else if you make errors. For junior ministers, a cock-up may mean a negative write up in an obscure trade journal, a three line article on page 47 of the Guardian, or people watching a regional politics show in East Anglia thinking the less of you. So you can afford to make and learn from a few minor errors in the way a Home Secretary can't so easily.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
There are no proposals to demand a passport or driver's licence. That is a scare mongering lie. The voter ID requirements are not even close to requiring photo ID.
And, of course, NI has been coping perfectly well with full voter ID for a long time
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
Corbynites hate her for being vocally anti-Corbyn, and they control the party for now.
She's great. She did the best demolition job ob Boris Johnson I've heard. With her authentic Birmingham twang "He's just a liar. Just a complete liar. That's all there is to be said". I believed her. She's a rare thing in the Labour Party at the moment. She sounds straight talking and authentic.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
I would expect someone in advertising to think it’s great when a middle class person manages to convince gullible consumers they are working class in order to sell their wares
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
There are no proposals to demand a passport or driver's licence. That is a scare mongering lie. The voter ID requirements are not even close to requiring photo ID.
And, of course, NI has been coping perfectly well with full voter ID for a long time
My apologies for any upset, but it does seem that there are such proposals - or for technical accuracy will very soon be, in the Queen's Speech. I was going by this: which also notes that they have a different system with actual voter ID cards in NI.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
I'm not sure I agree. Why would a talentless person fare better in a junior ministerial role? The workload would potentially be the same or higher.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
More pressure and judgement required in a more senior role. Patel is not talentless but she’s not top calibre
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
Prosecutors said at a Wednesday detention hearing that since August 2018, he had been sending letters and emails detailing his request to farms, stables and horse-boarding facilities throughout Sussex County, located in the northernmost point of the state. Unsurprisingly, many of the recipients were not thrilled to learn that an adult man was interested in having a sexual relationship with their livestock
One, how curious that someone with such proclivities decided to politely send letters and emails to seek permission for this peversion.
Two, I would hope the recipients would be equally not thrilled to learn a non-adult woman was interested in such peversion. #feminism
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
Deeply immoral? I was under the impression a great many places are far less liberal than we are in letting foreign citizens vote in our elections.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Nothing to do with me, chum. I'm just puzzled at the asymmetry being afforded to what appear to be the London administration's proposals versus much vaguer ones from the Opposition parties.
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
Deeply immoral? I was under the impression a great many places are far less liberal than we are in letting foreign citizens vote in our elections.
That's besides the point. Something can be wrong even if every country does it. I've lived in another country where I was not allowed to vote in national elections. It was wrong there, and it's wrong for people who live here too.
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
47.4% for Bel Edwards is almost eight points more than he got in the 2015 primary. (And the other Dems in 2015 only got 1.8% between them in '15).
So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
I'm not sure I agree. Why would a talentless person fare better in a junior ministerial role? The workload would potentially be the same or higher.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
I don't think she's talentless, just that she doesn't realise the import of her actions, and that she is (how to put this) more focused on her general importance than on the job at hand.
The holiday to Israel that was actually work (or was it) followed by lying was a classic example of this. And I think it's following over into her role as Home Secretary. So, she feels she has to go on these TV shows because it's what an ambitious Home Secretary does, but she's also stressed and trying to remember her brief, and comes across a bit wrong.
She has some similarities with that boy Gavin Williamson.
Prosecutors said at a Wednesday detention hearing that since August 2018, he had been sending letters and emails detailing his request to farms, stables and horse-boarding facilities throughout Sussex County, located in the northernmost point of the state. Unsurprisingly, many of the recipients were not thrilled to learn that an adult man was interested in having a sexual relationship with their livestock
One, how curious that someone with such proclivities decided to politely send letters and emails to seek permission for this peversion.
Two, I would hope the recipients would be equally not thrilled to learn a non-adult woman was interested in such peversion. #feminism
I'm not surprised they were unhappy - it is a route for disease transmission into new host species [edit], for one thing.
But letters like that do happen. I recall getting a letter of that kind in the institution where I once worked (though more masochistic in its content); a colleague got one, with the animal in question changed to suit his department. So the perpetrator must have sent more ...
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
Deeply immoral? I was under the impression a great many places are far less liberal than we are in letting foreign citizens vote in our elections.
That's besides the point. Something can be wrong even if every country does it. I've lived in another country where I was not allowed to vote in national elections. It was wrong there, and it's wrong for people who live here too.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
They must all be so dim.
Pelosi and her impeachment nonsense is a disaster for the Democrats and if they carry on with it they will destroy Biden in the process who is their best chance against Trump.
Mr. Simon, indeed. During the ID trials I believe all a voter needed to do was request one, if they didn't have any of the various acceptable forms already, from the local council.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
The difference is between debating and legislating over a period of time and shoehorning a partisan change in without scrutiny
Mr. Simon, indeed. During the ID trials I believe all a voter needed to do was request one, if they didn't have any of the various acceptable forms already, from the local council.
Thank you for pointing that out - we will have to see the details of the proposed scheme.
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
47.4% for Bel Edwards is almost eight points more than he got in the 2015 primary. (And the other Dems in 2015 only got 1.8% between them in '15).
So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.
He did ok but is a popular incumbent.The rest of the Dem performance was appalling.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
The difference is between debating and legislating over a period of time and shoehorning a partisan change in without scrutiny
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
The only thing that's immoral would be the socialist loons creating a new electorate because they know that they can never win under the existing one...
O/T as I predicted last night the Democrats got a bit of a shellacking across the board last night in the Louisiana elections (although the popular Dem Governor Edwards might still win in the Governor run-off in November). Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
47.4% for Bel Edwards is almost eight points more than he got in the 2015 primary. (And the other Dems in 2015 only got 1.8% between them in '15).
So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.
He did ok but is a popular incumbent.The rest of the Dem performance was appalling.
I'm just scanning the raw numbers and the results seem almost identical to 2015. So, in both the Attorney General and Leuitenant Governor races the Dems got almost exactly the same vote share as last time around.
In the state Senate, did any seats even change hands? It seems so gerrymandered that the number of competitive seats seems close to zero. (Which also makes real analysis of the results difficult.)
Looking purely at the state wide races, the Dems have done no worse than 2015 anywhere, and substantial better in the Governor's race.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
The only thing that's immoral would be the socialist loons creating a new electorate because they know that they can never win under the existing one...
I am far from clear that the people currently denied a vote would choose to vote Labour in any greater numbers than us Brits do. I for one would give them the vote even if I knew they were likely to vote for parties I don't like, such as the Conservatives or Labour. The live here. The way this country is run matters to them in a deeply personal way, just like it does to you.
I'm glad to hear of your consistency, though I am surprised something so obviously immoral is not therefore causing outrage across the world given many places are even more immoral than we are about this. Perhaps it is not so obviously immoral as you think?
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
It sometimes takes a while for the world to cotton on to systemic injustices and then you wonder, looking back, why it took so long. A hundred or so years ago women weren't allowed to vote. There were a great number of people before that who just didn't see why such a change was important. It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed: "My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." "My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..." I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
I genuinely don’t understand why anyone would want foreign citizens to be able to vote. It seems mad to me to even suggest it. I don’t want them to have a say in how I’m governed unless or until they naturalise.
And yet for you it is obvious that they should. Just shows you - views on this will vary a lot. Probably indicates the difference between having an internationalist mindset and not.
By "wrecking amendments", I mean things like votes at 16, EU citizens' votes, maybe even new boundary changes that disadvantage the Tories. They're all things the Lib Dems would happily support, even if they were also supporting the main motion calling for an election, so I don't know why you're so convinced they wouldn't pass?
I did allow that the Lords rejecting it was less likely, but it still can't be ruled out, especially since, in the scenario we're talking about, the amendment would only have scraped through the Commons by the skin of its teeth.
Given the crap we hear about a 15 year old boundary review, do they really think it is right to change the electorate in their favour when calling an election?
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
But are there not Tory proposals to change the electorate in their favour? For instance, to demand a passport or driver's licence as ID in the absence of a proper ID card - which biases in favour of the better off? (It also discriminates against the elderly, in my experience, but maybe postal voters will not be so scrutinised?)
Labour proposes to extend the vote to all UK residents instead of just citizens! That's 3 million extra people, which would be the largest gerrymander in modern history.
You were saying?
Have they proposed that? If so, well done them. It's deeply immoral that people who are allowed to live in a place are not allowed to vote in national elections.
Call me old fashioned but whatever happened to ‘no taxation without representation’ ? If you pay taxes here why shouldn’t you get a say in who decides the taxes? Or maybe we should exempt all non-UK citizens from income tax, VAT etc just to be fairer?
Comments
Tories would love her.
https://twitter.com/Guedella/status/1141449992986603530?s=20
Does the left have no shame?
(As an aside, I suspect it would back fire badly because it would be widely perceived as wrong)
Even with a deal no time now to get the legislation through . Tusk has given 48 hrs for an agreement on the proposals .
Then you’d need several weeks to put that into a legal framework .
Bozo should have spent more time on a deal rather than parading around the country looking for photo opportunities.
Reminds me of what Claudius said about Tiberius nominating Caligula so his own legacy would look better by way of comparison.
Well given that Marr asked what did she find so amusing shows it’s not all about a still picture to show her in the worst light.
Other parents - and it is always parents not kids - comment on her fondness for wearing a skirt with leggings
It strikes me as very practical on a cold day!
She’s someone I have very little time. I personally find Stella Creasy irritating, but she’s absolutely a heavy weight while Jess Philips is not
If you outlawed the practise of uniform shops kicking back money to schools, then schools would suddenly find that they were a lot more flexible about exactly where you bought your jumper from. (And the incentive to regularlt change/update uniforms would disappear.)
KS Too Boring Too Liberal Elite Too Right Wing finishes 3rd at best
ET Too Liberal Elite Too out of touch with non remain London Elites Gone from top2 to outside top 2
YC Most right wing on list Next times Liz 4% Kendall
LN Too disloyal to JC finishes nearer bottom than top
AR More in touch than those above. Some right wing views 2nd or 3rd
RLB Once the likely successor could still win or more likely 2nd
LP Favourite IMO Current Dead Heat with RLB but star on rise and after GE likely winner
SNP have failed to notice that the UK's protracted, chaotic possible exit from EU is not a good advert for leaving a union.
Priti Patel was not laughing at the prospect of job losses.
She was smiling the fake smile of the stressed person who's trying not to appear stressed. We've all been there.
Her problem is that she's been over-promoted. Her talents should probably have topped her out at Financial Secretary to the Treasury or Home Office Minister. Instead she's in one of the offices of state, and she's struggling.
She's 32 for a start. Crazy.
But she was clearly not laughing at the ides of businesses going bankrupt
It’s just gotcha journalism rather than holding politicians to account
And she's a Brummy.
When Corbyn sends his demolition squads out you know she's hitting the mark. The public would love her unlike Laura Pidcock who sounds like a moron.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/opinion/sunday/white-supremacist-recruitment.html
Btw was there much discussion here on the far-right terrorsist attack on the German synagogue? The attacker killing some Muslims after being denied the chance to kill some Jews seems the logical (sic) next step for these kind of people.
The amount of discussion on why someone was smiling is absurd.
On the plus side her new best friend - who shares her dress sense - is Gal Gadot’s daughter
I don't, though, see her as a particularly good choice for leader at this time. She has a bit of a "rent-a-gob" quality (not unlike her fellow Birmingham MP - many years ago - Anthony Beaumont Dark). She also has the luxury of shooting from the hip as a backbencher who has not held a job where she needs to hold together a range of colleagues with a range of views (indeed, that mirrors some of the problems of Corbyn in many ways).
Personally, I think a new leader would do well to promote her and see if she can keep her relatability/likeability whilst holding a brief and managing her colleagues. If she can, she's plenty young enough to be next leader but one.
The point is also moot - she's got too many important enemies to win it now.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/tories-at-war/on-demand/69801-001
No chance of Lab moving to me me me politics
Rebecca Long Bailey and Laura Pidcock to be blunt are hopeless and not appealing in any way which of course means either will end up Leader .
The membership have got to start realizing that a leader has to appeal to more than them.
One is that teachers and headteachers, splendid people though they are, can be easily over-impressed by a really smart uniform. There is something genuinely impressive about a thousand pupils immaculately turned out, which only works with a single supplier.
The other issue is that really uniform uniforms do work as a petty but non-trivial lever to improve a school. Part of the point of branding trousers and skirts is to ensure the cut is more suitable for the academy than for helping a politician with his IT problems. It acts as a positive advert for the school. Also, unfortunately, some schools do seem to use the cost of their uniform as a discreet but definite way of discouraging some families from applying.
The holiday to Israel that was actually work (or was it) followed by lying was a classic example of this. And I think it's following over into her role as Home Secretary. So, she feels she has to go on these TV shows because it's what an ambitious Home Secretary does, but she's also stressed and trying to remember her brief, and comes across a bit wrong.
On workload of a junior vs cabinet minister, if you mean "hours" then I am not sure which has a bigger workload - probably the cabinet minister, but possibly not.
But is it sensible to look at it in terms of hours? There are plenty of jobs with long hours that aren't especially high pressure. The pressure of high office comes from the fact most of your decisions are scrutinised intensely, and the stakes are high for you and everyone else if you make errors. For junior ministers, a cock-up may mean a negative write up in an obscure trade journal, a three line article on page 47 of the Guardian, or people watching a regional politics show in East Anglia thinking the less of you. So you can afford to make and learn from a few minor errors in the way a Home Secretary can't so easily.
And, of course, NI has been coping perfectly well with full voter ID for a long time
You were saying?
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/voter-identification-uk-government_uk_5da32060e4b02c9da04bf561
One, how curious that someone with such proclivities decided to politely send letters and emails to seek permission for this peversion.
Two, I would hope the recipients would be equally not thrilled to learn a non-adult woman was interested in such peversion. #feminism
Interestingly exit polls showed 47 per cent of Independents voted a straight Republican ticket ,which is pretty unheard of in these types of election when so many different offices are up for grabs.This is a very strong indicator that Trump is polling very well with Indies at least in the South.
I've lived in another country where I was not allowed to vote in national elections. It was wrong there, and it's wrong for people who live here too.
So I think that's a very strong finish for him that pretty much guarantees him the Governorship.
But letters like that do happen. I recall getting a letter of that kind in the institution where I once worked (though more masochistic in its content); a colleague got one, with the animal in question changed to suit his department. So the perpetrator must have sent more ...
For what it's worth I don't even have a problem with the idea, I just don't see it's lack as immoral.
In the state Senate, did any seats even change hands? It seems so gerrymandered that the number of competitive seats seems close to zero. (Which also makes real analysis of the results difficult.)
Looking purely at the state wide races, the Dems have done no worse than 2015 anywhere, and substantial better in the Governor's race.
It's sometimes helpful to imagine a group of people did have the vote, and then constructing arguments for why it should be removed:
"My next door neighbour is a woman, and she shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
"My next door neighbour was born in Portugal and he shouldn't be allowed to vote because..."
I find it difficult to complete either of those sentences in any way that doesn't end up being "...because I don't like women|foreigners" or "...because I don't think they will vote in the correct way". And I don't find those arguments to be at all ethical.
I for one would give them the vote even if I knew they were likely to vote for parties I don't like, such as the Conservatives or Labour. The live here. The way this country is run matters to them in a deeply personal way, just like it does to you.
Also, buy more!
And yet for you it is obvious that they should. Just shows you - views on this will vary a lot. Probably indicates the difference between having an internationalist mindset and not.
https://twitter.com/sommervilletv/status/1183279721288781824?s=20