Mr. Royale, it's ironic that if Wellington (as was common practice at the time) hadn't been able to buy his promotions he wouldn't've risen so quickly and Napoleon might very well have ended up victorious.
Yes, but he was the exception rather than the rule.
He was good enough to have risen quickly under a meritocratic system.
It’s not often that you see late eighteenth/early nineteenth aristocratic Britain described as a meritocracy!
It was the French, after their revolution opened up prospects for soldiers with ability to rise more freely into the officer ranks, that had the dividend from better officers.
That’s not what I said.
I said that he would have risen just as fast had there been a meritocratic system (obviously there wasn’t).
He bought all those commissions because that’s how you got on in those days. Had promotions been made on merit alone he’d have risen just as fast.
Had he been poor and talented, he might have got stuck at Major. But I expect he’d have at least made colonel.
Ydoethur, You cannot conflate how Scotland would run its economy with the UK budgets, many of the fripperies would be dropped for sure. Like most normal countries we would likely have a deficit but the government could make real decisions that could improve Scotland rather than us having to follow policies that suit the much bigger English economy that do not suit us. All the evidence from the world is that small countries can be successful and given Scotland's natural resources it would tend to point to us being among the most likely to be successful given decent governance. Trying to pretend that based on UK policies we are a basket case is just wrong, unionists trying to pretend Scotland is 80% of the UK deficit is just stupid. On your last point, we have lots of painful choices forced on us now with no input on what is best for us. You have to be blind to think Scotland is being run successfully from London.
The Scottish government has an opportunity to run its economy currently and if it was serious on independence they could run a healthy budget rather than fripperies like free tuition and free prescriptions.
I agree small countries can be successful and I think Scotland can be, once it drops its fripperies I completely agree. Just a shame the SNP insist on maintaining those fripperies today and not leading by example.
They currently run a balanced budget, given the poverty caused by UK policies do you think they should run a surplus. What better to tackle poverty than better education.
Thank you to Mike and Robert by the way for the Bloomberg tip. I'm on him for both the nomination and, more improbably, the Presidency. He's the only one Donald Trump will fear.
Two business titans going head-to-head would be explosive, although Bloomberg makes Trump look like Poundshop.
Thank you to Mike and Robert by the way for the Bloomberg tip. I'm on him for both the nomination and, more improbably, the Presidency. He's the only one Donald Trump will fear.
Two business titans going head-to-head would be explosive, although Bloomberg makes Trump look like Poundshop.
Yes, having been quite red on Bloomberg I have now cut my losses and got back to par as nominee, and backed him for Pres. When you look at the field of established Dem politicians, the flaws of each of them has been on display for some time and none of them look like credibly succeeding against Trump. The US’s money-driven system stops some charismatic newbie coming from left field, and when the desperation to beat Trump becomes acute, Bloomberg is the only other play they have.
Bloomberg is a blank slate at the moment. At current prices I am happy to wait till he has been tested. He could be another paper tiger like Kamala Harris.
Ydoethur, You cannot conflate how Scotland would run its economy with the UK budgets, many of the fripperies would be dropped for sure. Like most normal countries we would likely have a deficit but the government could make real decisions that could improve Scotland rather than us having to follow policies that suit the much bigger English economy that do not suit us. All the evidence from the world is that small countries can be successful and given Scotland's natural resources it would tend to point to us being among the most likely to be successful given decent governance. Trying to pretend that based on UK policies we are a basket case is just wrong, unionists trying to pretend Scotland is 80% of the UK deficit is just stupid. On your last point, we have lots of painful choices forced on us now with no input on what is best for us. You have to be blind to think Scotland is being run successfully from London.
The Scottish government has an opportunity to run its economy currently and if it was serious on independence they could run a healthy budget rather than fripperies like free tuition and free prescriptions.
I agree small countries can be successful and I think Scotland can be, once it drops its fripperies I completely agree. Just a shame the SNP insist on maintaining those fripperies today and not leading by example.
They currently run a balanced budget, given the poverty caused by UK policies do you think they should run a surplus. What better to tackle poverty than better education.
Yes I do think they should run a surplus. Keynesian economics, this is a time of growth so they should run a surplus to save up funds to spend during the next recession.
Does better education in your eyes mean giving those who have already done well from primary and secondary education a further boost via free tertiary education? It doesn't mean fixing any issues in primary and secondary education from those who are struggling?
It's not a lie. A lie is people like you pretending WTO is some scary scenario that is the end of the world and means we will be some insular backwater like North Korea. Rather than it will simple make us like Australia.
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
So the government is shaking the magic money tree for Boris’ train set and putting costly checks at ports. Something isn’t going to add up.
It would not surprise me if Boris steals another Labour ploy which is to change the accounting system to record assets alongside cash. This was what would have made Labour's nationalisation programme cost-free: you spend £100 billion but have acquired an asset worth £100 billion so the country is no worse off.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
The pledge on broadband was insane - it would result in something worse than we currently get without any of the benefits. All that was needed was the phrase market failure and the introduction of a collective responsibility that everyone could access the internet at a speed of x for £y a month. Firms could then decide how their collectively met that target but could compete on offering services beyond that.
It's not a lie. A lie is people like you pretending WTO is some scary scenario that is the end of the world and means we will be some insular backwater like North Korea. Rather than it will simple make us like Australia.
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
It's not an "Australian model". It's "no deal" dressed up for suckers like you to lap up.
Looking at the Ashcroft poll looks like Starmer and Rayner is the most popular ticket for Labour with all voters then and Long Bailey and Burgon the least popular
It's not a lie. A lie is people like you pretending WTO is some scary scenario that is the end of the world and means we will be some insular backwater like North Korea. Rather than it will simple make us like Australia.
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
It's not an "Australian model". It's "no deal" dressed up for suckers like you to lap up.
It's not a lie. A lie is people like you pretending WTO is some scary scenario that is the end of the world and means we will be some insular backwater like North Korea. Rather than it will simple make us like Australia.
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
It's not an "Australian model". It's "no deal" dressed up for suckers like you to lap up.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
Good idea. Three really big difficulties; firstly the gap between what people want, what they say they want, and what they want once they have been told they got what they wanted.
Secondly, what people want come into both internal and external conflicts. Internal conflicts are multiple but include the desire for low taxes for oneself and first rate free at delivery public services. External conflicts are those where different people/groups want perfectly sensible things but what they differently want come into direct conflict with each other.
For these two reasons politics in its nature cannot and never will be a process of asking folks what they want and giving it to them; it is always conflicted.
Thirdly, looking at the world as it operates today, it would take a great deal of good argument to show that this does not involve abandoning socialism, unless this is understood to include centre left social democracy. Socialism is one of the utopianisms that prefer to think that if only they all do as they say all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
So the government is shaking the magic money tree for Boris’ train set and putting costly checks at ports. Something isn’t going to add up.
It would not surprise me if Boris steals another Labour ploy which is to change the accounting system to record assets alongside cash. This was what would have made Labour's nationalisation programme cost-free: you spend £100 billion but have acquired an asset worth £100 billion so the country is no worse off.
Sounds logical to me. So long as the price is right.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Yep we've already had that old chestnut traipsed out on here.
Neatly side-stepping the blatant truth that people used local elections to send a message to Tony Blair's otherwise successful reign. The locals meant didly squat on a national level and it's at best lazy argument to suggest otherwise and at worst deliberate deceit.
Cameron's Tories led by 10% in the 2009 local elections, Blair's Labour by 14% in the 1996 local elections.
An opposition party leading in the local elections does not mean they will win the next general election but an opposition party trailing in the local elections almost certainly does mean they will lose
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
It's not a lie. A lie is people like you pretending WTO is some scary scenario that is the end of the world and means we will be some insular backwater like North Korea. Rather than it will simple make us like Australia.
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
It's not an "Australian model". It's "no deal" dressed up for suckers like you to lap up.
I assume attaching the word "Australia" to everything is some focus grouped nonsense.
I’ve just seen someone refer to RLB as “Corbyn in a skirt” and this is the last straw im fucking fed up of men in the Labour Party feeling comfortable spouting sexist shit and not being confronted
So the government is shaking the magic money tree for Boris’ train set and putting costly checks at ports. Something isn’t going to add up.
It would not surprise me if Boris steals another Labour ploy which is to change the accounting system to record assets alongside cash. This was what would have made Labour's nationalisation programme cost-free: you spend £100 billion but have acquired an asset worth £100 billion so the country is no worse off.
Sounds logical to me. So long as the price is right.
Such accounting would not have found favour with Mrs Thatcher, since she used privatisation proceeds as a magic money tree, spaffing the cash on current expenditure. This is what Harold Macmillan meant by selling the family silver.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
So the government is shaking the magic money tree for Boris’ train set and putting costly checks at ports. Something isn’t going to add up.
It would not surprise me if Boris steals another Labour ploy which is to change the accounting system to record assets alongside cash. This was what would have made Labour's nationalisation programme cost-free: you spend £100 billion but have acquired an asset worth £100 billion so the country is no worse off.
Sounds logical to me. So long as the price is right.
Such accounting would not have found favour with Mrs Thatcher, since she used privatisation proceeds as a magic money tree, spaffing the cash on current expenditure. This is what Harold Macmillan meant by selling the family silver.
As opposed to Gordon Brown's "Investment" in tax credits, spending 50bn a year on making half the population fill in forms to get some of their own money back?
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
That's right. Keep the radicalism, lose the 70s vibe. This wins as soon as the public wake up to the Brexit and "Boris" con.
The only worry I have is not that Labour won't do this - we will - but that the public takes longer to "wake up" than one might imagine. We know what the public can be like. They can be rather dozy at times.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Or resigned.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
So the government is shaking the magic money tree for Boris’ train set and putting costly checks at ports. Something isn’t going to add up.
It would not surprise me if Boris steals another Labour ploy which is to change the accounting system to record assets alongside cash. This was what would have made Labour's nationalisation programme cost-free: you spend £100 billion but have acquired an asset worth £100 billion so the country is no worse off.
Sounds logical to me. So long as the price is right.
Such accounting would not have found favour with Mrs Thatcher, since she used privatisation proceeds as a magic money tree, spaffing the cash on current expenditure. This is what Harold Macmillan meant by selling the family silver.
As opposed to Gordon Brown's "Investment" in tax credits, spending 50bn a year on making half the population fill in forms to get some of their own money back?
Harold Macmillan was silent about Labour's tax credits. He might have thought it absurd that Labour was spending all this money to subsidise bad employers and rip-off landlords because that is the other side of it.
The policy issue was that, while a number of the policies were popular individually, they didn't fit together as a coherent whole.
Labour's sums were a long way from adding up in the eyes of the average Deplorable working man, and while the Brexit flip-flopping and Corbyn himself were factors, most people just saw taxes going up to pay for things that mostly went to 'other people' (middle-class students, WASPI women, benefits claimants, train commuters etc).
On policy deficiencies, I'd probably agree. Even before the election, I'd posted that the programme looked as if it was drawn up by a CCHQ mole.
But reports and polling since the election are adamant that it was Corbyn's personal toxicity to blame. I'm not convinced, and nor are his critics because if they are right it was not policy-related, they'd be voting for RLB and Corbynbism sans Corbyn.
Taking these findings seriously means we need to explain the turnaround since 2017. Now I've not read Lord Ashcroft's report; maybe the answer is in there. Until then, I quite like my new glasses, no eye-contact theory which is at least novel, and the inference of under-the-radar character assassination, which might need to wait for the post-election books to tell us more about the content of CCHQ social media messages.
I read the exec summary, and skimmed the full report this morning. Lord Ashcroft, no matter what people think of him, has been impartial and scientific in his research and reporting - although undoubtedly many will dismiss it as coming from himself, something he mentions in the first few hundred words of the report.
I think the headlines are that a lot of Labour voters (even those from 2017) thought that the party was moving away from its roots in working class communities, and becoming more the party of middle-class idealists who live in big cities - people concerned more with Palestine than Peterborough or Penistone.
.. snip ..
It should be noted that despite Labour doing much worse in 2019 than in 2010 its performance in metropolitan areas was much better.
Even disregarding London Labour has gained Leeds NW, Sheffield Hallam, Manchester Withington, Birmingham Yardley, Cardiff C, Cardiff N, Bristol W, Bristol NW, Brighton Kemptown and Hove.
While losing only Birmingham Northfield.
Its not surprising that a feedback loop is operating within Labour with the concerns of middle class metropolitans becoming ever more dominant.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
And most re-instated
Nope.
Yes
Not at all Big G - stop trying to fool yourself. The new Cons intake all pledged, in effect, to take us out of the EU with no deal if needs be and are I assure you far to the right of those they replaced.
I am no one to talk as I have remained a member but I try to do so with eyes wide open. Trying to pretend otherwise, and that the Cons are a different party to the one they so transparently are, is ridiculous.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Or resigned.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
That depends on how you describe the right.
I doubt the Conservative party is as much in favour of pandering to big business and engaging in Middle Eastern warmongering now than it was during the Cameron years.
What many of the new Conservatives MPs might well be though is 'localist right' and more concerned (to varying degrees through self-interest) with what their local electorate want.
If you want to read about it in more depth visit https://www.postofficetrial.com/ - a blog written by Nick Wallis who has been covering the story for years. Click on the "Start here" tab near the top of the page for links to posts summarising the case.
Post Office is paying the subpostmasters around £58M in compensation. Sadly, Post Office's approach to the litigation (described by both the judge and an appeal court judge as "attritional") increased the SPMs costs massively, which has the side effect of increasing the proportion of the settlement that will be taken by Therium, who funded the SPMs to bring their case against Post Office. The costs of the litigation funding are not recoverable from Post Office so only a small part of the settlement will be available for distribution to SPMs. Figures I've seen suggest they will receive less than 20% of the amount they believe they have lost.
There have been some calls for the government to pay the SPMs on the basis that, in part, this is a failure of oversight by the BEIS, but the minister concerned has rejected this.
The judge referred the case to the DPP on the basis that he believes several Fujitsu employees (the suppliers of Horizon) have committed perjury in both criminal and civil cases.
The CCRC is due to decide next month whether to refer 56 cases where SMPs have been convicted of offences based on Horizon "evidence" for appeal. Given what we now know, I think any conviction based on Horizon's figures should be overturned.
Meanwhile, Paula Vennells, the PO CEO through most of the years of denial, has been awarded a CBE, made chair of Imperial College Healthcare Trust and appointed a non-executive board member of the Cabinet Office.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Or resigned.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
That depends on how you describe the right.
I doubt the Conservative party is as much in favour of pandering to big business and engaging in Middle Eastern warmongering now than it was during the Cameron years.
What many of the new Conservatives MPs might well be though is 'localist right' and more concerned (to varying degrees through self-interest) with what their local electorate want.
Now if the Conservative party does become more grounded in local communities rather than in more international issues that could be a significant change as the LibDems have traditionally targeted that aspect of politics.
But that was before the LibDems went all in on 'the gentleman in Brussels knows best' strategy.
OK. The Saj says not: Chancellor Sajid Javid said no British nationals or anyone protected by the court ruling were on the flight. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51456387
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
The "let them eat cake" statement of the day.
Next they will be wanting children back up chimneys and calling it gainful employment
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Or resigned.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
That depends on how you describe the right.
I doubt the Conservative party is as much in favour of pandering to big business and engaging in Middle Eastern warmongering now than it was during the Cameron years.
What many of the new Conservatives MPs might well be though is 'localist right' and more concerned (to varying degrees through self-interest) with what their local electorate want.
Now if the Conservative party does become more grounded in local communities rather than in more international issues that could be a significant change as the LibDems have traditionally targeted that aspect of politics.
But that was before the LibDems went all in on 'the gentleman in Brussels knows best' strategy.
Ironic since that was supposed to be Theresa May's appeal before she got sidelined by Brexit. Champion of the JAM families and small businesses around Britain.
I assume attaching the word "Australia" to everything is some focus grouped nonsense.
It tickles the turnips like nothing else. ATM, it's just on immigration and the EU trade deal but expect lots more "Australia" badging on things ranging from social care to schools policy to sentencing guidelines for violent criminals.
On topic did Labour plan a leadership campaign like this to persuade people that the race for the Democratic nomination was interesting after all and not as depressing as it first appears?
This is not a campaign, it is a procession, in fact 2 processions. The thought of this going on for another 2 months is not a happy one. Can everyone except Starmer and Rayner not just withdraw so that we can have an opposition back?
Just listened to the PB podcast about the Post Office. Dreadful state of affairs, with a bullying management absolutely convinced of its own rectitude...... in public at any rate. The top management must have known, since the contractors kept spending time on trying to put the system right, but the policy was always to blame, and prosecute, the sub-postmasters. Interesting the PO polices itself; might have been different if the real police had been involved since they might have asked questions of management and of the computer firm, which the in-house inspectorate didn't.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
I’ve just seen someone refer to RLB as “Corbyn in a skirt” and this is the last straw im fucking fed up of men in the Labour Party feeling comfortable spouting sexist shit and not being confronted
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
Rubbish, I voted Remain and backed the Withdrawal Agreement even under May so obviously cannot be ERG, I just respect democracy as do the voters who gave the Tories an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done.
I also recall BigG you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour before you cast more aspersions on how conservative I am
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
With socialism Lady Bountiful is the socialist state, not well intentioned LD voting Quaker and evangelical volunteers. They are the problem not the solution. Do keep up.
(There are lots of problems with Foodbanks but Labour will never spot what they are.)
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Your definition of "sane" requires much, much further expalanation.
Since their departure we have
1. Got Brexit done
2. A much happier Conservative Party
3. A much more relaxed country.
The Europhile monomania of a handful of MPS was responsible for bending the country all out of shape.
Indeed I'm happy to call Clarke "sane" but he was also very old and like Biden getting embarrassingly past the point of needing to retire - cf the frequent memes of him falling asleep in the chamber.
Grieve and others like him who rejected May's deal, rejected Boris's deal and rejected No Deal are anything but "sane". Grieve voted for a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted against every deal offered - I'm curious how anyone can define that as "sane".
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
Ah, I see. I thought you had resigned. Not completely politically homeless then. More moved out but still taking your washing back every weekend and cadging a cooked meal.
In other words, they want to be able to tell us to r"e-level" our social and employment "playing field" or they will stop the planes landing.
...and the US will threaten to ditch any trade deal they have with us whenever they want to bully us into doing something just as s Mike Pence is currently doing re Huawei.
Is that not just the new reality of being the junior partner trying to do trade deals on our own with any of the EU/US/China economic giants? Any deal we do with any of them will now be very much on their terms
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
The more sane Conservative party was sacked.
Or resigned.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
That depends on how you describe the right.
I doubt the Conservative party is as much in favour of pandering to big business and engaging in Middle Eastern warmongering now than it was during the Cameron years.
What many of the new Conservatives MPs might well be though is 'localist right' and more concerned (to varying degrees through self-interest) with what their local electorate want.
Yes you are right (!) - "left" and "right" can mean a multitude of things. But as I describe them, they are more hardline, more extreme as I see it, than hitherto.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
Rubbish, I voted Remain and backed the Withdrawal Agreement even under May so obviously cannot be ERG, I just respect democracy as do the voters who gave the Tories an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done.
I also recall you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour
That just makes you a loyalist it doesn't give you any virtue.
I was too young to vote in 1997 and voted Labour in 2001.
Held my nose and voted Tory in 2005 despite not liking Howard the party as it was still then I could see Brown was destroying the economy, did consider voting Lib Dems. 2010, 2015, 2019 happily voted Tory. 2017 voted Tory to stop Corbyn despite my dislike of May.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
Rubbish, I voted Remain and backed the Withdrawal Agreement even under May so obviously cannot be ERG, I just respect democracy as do the voters who gave the Tories an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done.
I also recall you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour
That just makes you a loyalist it doesn't give you any virtue.
I was too young to vote in 1997 and voted Labour in 2001.
Held my nose and voted Tory in 2005 despite not liking Howard the party as it was still then I could see Brown was destroying the economy, did consider voting Lib Dems. 2010, 2015, 2019 happily voted Tory. 2017 voted Tory to stop Corbyn despite my dislike of May.
I have never said you were a conservative, you are a Leave backing libertarian, not a conservative
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
Rubbish, I voted Remain and backed the Withdrawal Agreement even under May so obviously cannot be ERG, I just respect democracy as do the voters who gave the Tories an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done.
I also recall BigG you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour before you cast more aspersions on how conservative I am
Absolutely. And we all understand how disappointed you, I, and the other Remainers on here are at the current announcements about our likely Brexit settlement.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
Lord Ashcroft has some great focus groups on this - one woman said that she relies on the food bank and Labour said they would abolish them. Totally screwed up messaging.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
Ah, I see. I thought you had resigned. Not completely politically homeless then. More moved out but still taking your washing back every weekend and cadging a cooked meal.
It's has been worth putting up with family meals as it kept the madmen out of the house in my absence.
The Tories could see IDS's manifest failings with the public - and did what was required to prevent that being tested at a general election.
Labour say they can't see Corbyn's manifest failings with the public - despite their being pointed out by losing two general elections.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn.
lol. HY will be along presently to tell you about his stunning local election results.
Thankfully HYUFD is not the Tory Party.
I think he reflects how it currently is, and that is not a compliment to either.
He reflects ERG but not the more sane conservative party that I support
Rubbish, I voted Remain and backed the Withdrawal Agreement even under May so obviously cannot be ERG, I just respect democracy as do the voters who gave the Tories an 80 seat majority to get Brexit done.
I also recall you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour
That just makes you a loyalist it doesn't give you any virtue.
I was too young to vote in 1997 and voted Labour in 2001.
Held my nose and voted Tory in 2005 despite not liking Howard the party as it was still then I could see Brown was destroying the economy, did consider voting Lib Dems. 2010, 2015, 2019 happily voted Tory. 2017 voted Tory to stop Corbyn despite my dislike of May.
I have never said you were a conservative, you are a Leave backing libertarian, not a conservative
Quite right. The best modern Conservative PMs have all had libertarian streaks.
Whereas May used libertarian as a dirty word. She wasn't fit to be PM.
The international trade numbers look odd but the ONS doesn't have the report available yet.
Slightly odd that there wasn't a boost from stockpiling ahead of yet another Brexit departure date. Maybe people finally worked out that there was no need to do so.
Very nice for those who had SF at at between 29 and 37.
My thanks to RN.
I wonder why the 5 Shinners who didn't get elected didn't! Any common factors? Someone, somewhere will no doubt do a piece on second preferences, especially from Sinn Fein.
The international trade numbers look odd but the ONS doesn't have the report available yet.
Slightly odd that there wasn't a boost from stockpiling ahead of yet another Brexit departure date. Maybe people finally worked out that there was no need to do so.
Perhaps the fall in retail sales was also affected by people not adding to their bog roll and beans stockpiles.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
The international trade numbers look odd but the ONS doesn't have the report available yet.
Slightly odd that there wasn't a boost from stockpiling ahead of yet another Brexit departure date. Maybe people finally worked out that there was no need to do so.
Surely that's because the two dates would cancel each other out as the date was delayed by exactly one quarter?
Whether it's intentionally sexist or not, it's a really stupid phrase to use in the context of a party that's never elected a female leader. That is, unless your goal is to rile the sort of person that gets triggered by this (which I suspect is often the case).
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I am woke - no inverted commas - and proud to be so, however I would like Labour to dial down a bit on the Identity politics. For 2 reasons really. Firstly, not to be complacent, but I think that time will continue to work its progressive magic in this area without an enormous amount of kicking up the backside needed. Secondly, if you get too in-your-face with this stuff it just riles those you most want to influence - i.e. the large numbers of people who are a bit reactionary but in no way Hardcore Deplorables - either that or it gifts opportunities for them to make tedious jokes of the "PC gorn mad" type which if they are in response to a case of PC actually gorning mad, you then have to nod and smile at with your teeth gritted.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
There was no charity in the 40s or 50s?
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
Corbyn: I think we should make broadband free. Media: Madman, utter insanity, it could never work.
Johnson: I want to build a 30-mile bridge across a 1000-foot-deep stretch of water that has a load of explosives dumped somewhere at the bottom. Media: Jolly good old chap! When?
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
The "let them eat cake" statement of the day.
The left isn't against food banks (and lots of us contribute/help too), but we're against their being necessary or, worse, being seen as a satisfactory alternative to a society where everyone can feed themselves without gbeing dependent on the availability and generosity of local volunteers.
Corbyn: I think we should make broadband free. Media: Madman, utter insanity, it could never work.
Johnson: I want to build a 30-mile bridge across a 1000-foot-deep stretch of water that has a load of explosives dumped somewhere at the bottom. Media: Jolly good old chap! When?
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember' the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
The "let them eat cake" statement of the day.
The left isn't against food banks (and lots of us contribute/help too), but we're against their being necessary or, worse, being seen as a satisfactory alternative to a society where everyone can feed themselves without gbeing dependent on the availability and generosity of local volunteers.
So you're against safety nets. You're against welfare?
Corbyn: I think we should make broadband free. Media: Madman, utter insanity, it could never work.
Johnson: I want to build a 30-mile bridge across a 1000-foot-deep stretch of water that has a load of explosives dumped somewhere at the bottom. Media: Jolly good old chap! When?
Government ran broadband is horrific for multiple reasons. Government organised bridges are built all the time.
... or not, as in the case of the 'Garden Bridge'.
I wonder if Boris had remained as London Mayor whether the bridge would have been cancelled or not. Thankfully Boris should be PM for basically this whole decade I expect so he's got time to not just announce projects but actually get them started and built.
If Labour want to make a fresh start, I suggest that they sit down with voters of all stripes and all backgrounds and ask them what are their day-to-day problems. I expect you'd hear a lot about crime, daily costs of living, transport, quality of rented housing and quality of education. I'd place heavy wagers that neither Brexit nor Palestine would feature.
Labour needs to be talking more about the day-to-day stuff and identifying solutions that match 2020 rather than 1970. That doesn't mean abandoning socialism (the pledge on broadband, for example, was fine). It means looking at the world as it operates today.
I doubt you would hear much about zero hour contracts, food banks or rough sleeping either.
They oppose the policies that lead towards food banks being necessary. The nuance would get lost in the messaging, even if the Left was capable of articulating it.
People will always fall upon hard times, so food banks will always be necessary. It is a safety net, remember that term?
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
I grew up in the fifties, and 'sort of remember the forties', which were times of considerable less good fortune than now, and I don't recall either foodbanks or the need for them then.
There was no charity in the 40s or 50s?
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
The "let them eat cake" statement of the day.
The left isn't against food banks (and lots of us contribute/help too), but we're against their being necessary or, worse, being seen as a satisfactory alternative to a society where everyone can feed themselves without gbeing dependent on the availability and generosity of local volunteers.
So you're against safety nets. You're against welfare?
What we are against is an attitude of mind that says that peop[le who turn up 10 minutes late for an appointment because of an urgent hospital appointment are denied the basic necessities of life.
Government ran broadband is horrific for multiple reasons. Government organised bridges are built all the time.
... or not, as in the case of the 'Garden Bridge'.
I wonder if Boris had remained as London Mayor whether the bridge would have been cancelled or not. Thankfully Boris should be PM for basically this whole decade I expect so he's got time to not just announce projects but actually get them started and built.
I still don't understand the opposition of the Left to food banks. Are they not supposed to be those who care about the less fortunate and those who slip through the cracks? Do they oppose the many people in town halls and churches who often work for free to help those less fortunate than themselves?
The "let them eat cake" statement of the day.
The left isn't against food banks (and lots of us contribute/help too), but we're against their being necessary or, worse, being seen as a satisfactory alternative to a society where everyone can feed themselves without gbeing dependent on the availability and generosity of local volunteers.
Who on the right has ever disagreed with that? They existed under Lab they exist now and in a perfect world they wouldn't exist. But we are some way from a perfect world. Even a world run by Jeremy or Becs.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
---------------------------------------------------------- Both are, of course, true, However, rationing ended in 1954, IIRC and no-one was in the state too many are now after that.
I do, though recall, in themed to late 80's people being in severe difficulties, but very, very to the extent of not being able to buy food.
I suspect there very, very few still to the extent of not actually being able to buy food if they have to. There are people out there (not saying everyone) who spend their money on drugs, alcohol, tobacco or gambling then go to a food bank. There's been a few programs on TV that have shown people who always have a cigarette in their mouth going to food banks.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.
Comments
I said that he would have risen just as fast had there been a meritocratic system (obviously there wasn’t).
He bought all those commissions because that’s how you got on in those days. Had promotions been made on merit alone he’d have risen just as fast.
Had he been poor and talented, he might have got stuck at Major. But I expect he’d have at least made colonel.
What better to tackle poverty than better education.
https://twitter.com/tconnellyRTE/status/1227146430328037376
Does better education in your eyes mean giving those who have already done well from primary and secondary education a further boost via free tertiary education? It doesn't mean fixing any issues in primary and secondary education from those who are struggling?
My preferred option is a Canada style free trade deal based on being treated like equals. If the EU isn't ok with that then I'm happy with trading with them on the same terms as Australia.
By the way thanks for tip on SF >29.5
Secondly, what people want come into both internal and external conflicts. Internal conflicts are multiple but include the desire for low taxes for oneself and first rate free at delivery public services. External conflicts are those where different people/groups want perfectly sensible things but what they differently want come into direct conflict with each other.
For these two reasons politics in its nature cannot and never will be a process of asking folks what they want and giving it to them; it is always conflicted.
Thirdly, looking at the world as it operates today, it would take a great deal of good argument to show that this does not involve abandoning socialism, unless this is understood to include centre left social democracy. Socialism is one of the utopianisms that prefer to think that if only they all do as they say all will be for the best in the best of all possible worlds.
An opposition party leading in the local elections does not mean they will win the next general election but an opposition party trailing in the local elections almost certainly does mean they will lose
Scary.
The only worry I have is not that Labour won't do this - we will - but that the public takes longer to "wake up" than one might imagine. We know what the public can be like. They can be rather dozy at times.
The party is hugely to the right of where it was even a few months ago.
And I am still a member - partly as loyalty to a friend who is currently PPC although those are weasel words as we aren't likely to get an election any time soon.
I will let inertia take its toll and prob not renew my membership. That said, as with the GE - I will actively vote for most things if it helps stop a bunch of loons trying to damage the country economically. cf Brexit, where I was unsuccessful.
Even disregarding London Labour has gained Leeds NW, Sheffield Hallam, Manchester Withington, Birmingham Yardley, Cardiff C, Cardiff N, Bristol W, Bristol NW, Brighton Kemptown and Hove.
While losing only Birmingham Northfield.
Its not surprising that a feedback loop is operating within Labour with the concerns of middle class metropolitans becoming ever more dominant.
I am no one to talk as I have remained a member but I try to do so with eyes wide open. Trying to pretend otherwise, and that the Cons are a different party to the one they so transparently are, is ridiculous.
I doubt the Conservative party is as much in favour of pandering to big business and engaging in Middle Eastern warmongering now than it was during the Cameron years.
What many of the new Conservatives MPs might well be though is 'localist right' and more concerned (to varying degrees through self-interest) with what their local electorate want.
Post Office is paying the subpostmasters around £58M in compensation. Sadly, Post Office's approach to the litigation (described by both the judge and an appeal court judge as "attritional") increased the SPMs costs massively, which has the side effect of increasing the proportion of the settlement that will be taken by Therium, who funded the SPMs to bring their case against Post Office. The costs of the litigation funding are not recoverable from Post Office so only a small part of the settlement will be available for distribution to SPMs. Figures I've seen suggest they will receive less than 20% of the amount they believe they have lost.
There have been some calls for the government to pay the SPMs on the basis that, in part, this is a failure of oversight by the BEIS, but the minister concerned has rejected this.
The judge referred the case to the DPP on the basis that he believes several Fujitsu employees (the suppliers of Horizon) have committed perjury in both criminal and civil cases.
The CCRC is due to decide next month whether to refer 56 cases where SMPs have been convicted of offences based on Horizon "evidence" for appeal. Given what we now know, I think any conviction based on Horizon's figures should be overturned.
Meanwhile, Paula Vennells, the PO CEO through most of the years of denial, has been awarded a CBE, made chair of Imperial College Healthcare Trust and appointed a non-executive board member of the Cabinet Office.
Since their departure we have
1. Got Brexit done
2. A much happier Conservative Party
3. A much more relaxed country.
The Europhile monomania of a handful of MPS was responsible for bending the country all out of shape.
Jamaica deportation flight of criminals takes off despite Appeal Court order
Judge had ruled offenders could not be put on 6.30am charter flight on Tuesday unless Home Office could prove they had full access to lawyer
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/11/jamaica-deportation-flight-windrush-criminals-takes-despite/
But that was before the LibDems went all in on 'the gentleman in Brussels knows best' strategy.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-51456387
This is not a campaign, it is a procession, in fact 2 processions. The thought of this going on for another 2 months is not a happy one. Can everyone except Starmer and Rayner not just withdraw so that we can have an opposition back?
Interesting the PO polices itself; might have been different if the real police had been involved since they might have asked questions of management and of the computer firm, which the in-house inspectorate didn't.
Still, like many times I see someone making such points, this tweeter has invited accusations of hypocrisy with "fed up of men". In my experience, more women that men have been willing to make this kind of comment about RLB, probably because they are more likely to think they can get away with it.
It seems so obvious that, if you're going to call out prejudice, you should be careful not to betray your own prejudice while doing so. Otherwise you just harm your own cause. Yet it's normal to try to make a virtue of doing the exact opposite, and then get angry when this distracts attention from the original point.
I also recall BigG you voted Labour in 1997 and 2001, I have never voted Labour before you cast more aspersions on how conservative I am
(There are lots of problems with Foodbanks but Labour will never spot what they are.)
Grieve and others like him who rejected May's deal, rejected Boris's deal and rejected No Deal are anything but "sane". Grieve voted for a referendum, voted to invoke Article 50, then voted against every deal offered - I'm curious how anyone can define that as "sane".
My thanks to RN.
Is that not just the new reality of being the junior partner trying to do trade deals on our own with any of the EU/US/China economic giants?
Any deal we do with any of them will now be very much on their terms
I was too young to vote in 1997 and voted Labour in 2001.
Held my nose and voted Tory in 2005 despite not liking Howard the party as it was still then I could see Brown was destroying the economy, did consider voting Lib Dems. 2010, 2015, 2019 happily voted Tory. 2017 voted Tory to stop Corbyn despite my dislike of May.
Whereas May used libertarian as a dirty word. She wasn't fit to be PM.
Someone, somewhere will no doubt do a piece on second preferences, especially from Sinn Fein.
That's like saying you oppose welfare because you oppose policies that lead to welfare being necessary. There's no difference.
Food banks are just charity. No more, no less. A targeted charity.
We also don't have rationing unlike the 40s and 50s.
Government ran broadband is horrific for multiple reasons. Government organised bridges are built all the time.
Government ran broadband is horrific for multiple reasons. Government organised bridges are built all the time.
... or not, as in the case of the 'Garden Bridge'.
Tobacco is a horrible habit to kick, so I'm not having a dig, but it is still a choice. If they stopped spending money on other issues they could get food, but the food banks are out there so they can get help they need - and we know the charity is going as food and not nicotine.