Well if you want Government support, get out the corrupt Jenrick, these people hold the North with contempt
You do have to wonder the rationale in sending Robert "Tory dinner saves developer £45m in public money" Jenrick to explain why they don't have the £5m in question.
We need to stop seeing this as some grand master plan that Cummings has created and that will turn out to be genius. The truth is they don't have a plan and they're just going through the motions.
It is becoming clearer that they won last year due to Labour's poorly perceived leadership and Brexit position, that allowed what is a useless, spineless and divided Government to not receive any real scrutiny. In some sense, the reverse of 2017.
I thought May was hopeless but I'd have her back in a heartbeat. Cameron would have handled this well.
Brown would have done a good job. Blair would have done fine. Major would have done well.
It's this Government and its total lack of talent that has got us here - and I hold myself responsible for supporting Corbyn for PM when it should have been obvious he was going to let this happen. I have let the country down with that support.
No, May was useless; you can't excuse the errors and faults of previous leaders simply because the new one turns out even worse. May actually knew (from the beginning) that where our country was heading on Brexit would be damaging and yet was both unable and unwilling to lift a finger to stop, or even ameliorate, it.
Sunder Katwala said this showed “a concern to differentiate between the most egregious examples and a sweeping 'year zero' idea of interrogating every historical figure by contemporary standards”; “views of ethnic minority Britons could be summed up as one of frustration that these polarising culture wars misrepresent and trivialise ethnic minority concerns about race equality.”
He's spot on.
It's not really about the degree to which each statue is racist; it's about the destruction of what Mao called the 'four olds'.
He was spot on.
Old habits like collecting fast gas guzzlers, perhaps ?
The Great Helmsman had a Hongqi Red Flag with a (probably really bad) copy of a 354ci Chrysler V8 in it.
So an old traditionalist like you, really, then ? With a bit of state destruction and shoddy rebuilding thrown in.
It did look contrived. Still, he's had the headlines now and I can't see the journalists of today being all that bothered about correcting the record.
Perhaps they wont fall for Government spin. @bbclaurak excepted of course
Boris was asked about it directly 3 times at 5pm why did he only talk about £22m not £60m
Wouldn't be surprised if it was the idea of some bright spark aka. "Downing Street source" who thought that by not being clear then Burnham would try to make hay by saying that the Government had "withdrawn" the funding allowing the Government to then make him look silly by subsequently contradicting him.
It's a surprisingly decent article from Monbiot. If he could tone down the outrage by 50%, and increase the factual analysis by 10% or so, it would actually be very good indeed.
An excellent article from Monbiot overall, I would say. What is does highlight is the huge influence of McKinsey's, as the model all other elite management consultancies follow, that many companies have actually adapted to in order to meet its expectations without running contracts with it, and that has run huge numbers of government functions.
This largely unknown organisation to most people has had huge political and cultural influence over the last 40 years - it's high time its supposedly 'apolitical' influence was more widely understood.
This is getting into lizard illuminati territory.
McKinsey is a high-end strategy consultancy but isn't the model all management consultancies follow - I know because I've worked for several - and isn't secretly pulling strings behind the scenes. That's not how they work.
The Big4 do operate as something of a soft cartel and that's because with their size, profile and reach (they audit almost all the FTSE100 and the vast majority of the FTSE250, plus have people working throughout all Government departments) work just comes through the door to them, and they are very good at leveraging. The Government likes hiring them as "what more could I have done?" in a crisis than hiring the Big4?
It's a cosy merry-go-round but it's not a conspiracy. Best thing Government could do is to lift some of the restrictions they have on hiring the best project and commercial talent and then diversify their procurement.
It's facts, rather than paranoia, I'm afraid. The modern reach, ethos and form of elite management consultancy wouldn't exist at all without McKinsey's, and its influence has been instrumental in corporate governance and public policy in the UK and the United States, and far beyond, since the turn of the 1980s. It is not a neutral technocratic instrument.
I'm afraid you asserting your opinion is a fact doesn't make it so. Some of its ex-employees have held and do hold senior corporate and political positions but that's because it employs extremely talented people who are happy to work hard for long hours - like William Hague, for example; it's not a conspiracy. It would be fair to say that operating at that level allowed them to network and build contacts with influential people at CEO level but it's secretly "controlling" anything - clients have to choose to take its advice.
Management consultancy (helping organisations improve performance) is a fairly recent profession and grew significantly in the 1980s because that was when corporations and businesses started moving away from a traditional hierarchical models just as the world got more complex in people, tax, strategy and technology, and more competitive in how it did things. It's that same evolution into more sophisticated business models that allowed GDP to rise so much at the same time. It wasn't a dark art of McKinsey that brought it all about.
Don't get me wrong: I wouldn't like to work for them. They still have an "up or out" policy, you are reviewed every six months and they work brutal hours and extensively travel. You're under constant stress. But, that said, those I know who've worked there have learnt a huge amount and found the experience very useful for their subsequent careers.
The 1980’s you say. And the period since then has been the epitome, has it not, of brilliant management in lots of private sector organisations. And of a GDP built on solid foundations ...... Or perhaps not.
Of course there have been problems, not least in the financial services industry, but world GDP (GWP) has increased from around 18tn in 1980 to around 81trn today - a four-fold increase in real terms. In England, from £15k per head in 1980 to almost £30k per head today - so we are twice as wealthy.
That doesn't mean we still have problems - including examples of poor practice, corruption, management failures and huge entitlement - but it does mean our 'new' services driven economy has delivered great improvements in the quality of life.
Two things can be true at the same time.
But these improvements are not down to the McKinsey way of management which you seemed to imply - but perhaps I misunderstood you.
If anything I think that the unnecessary complication - and the attempt to deal with that using management techniques sold at vast expense and which often seem to me to have been either the restatement of the bleeding obvious or like the Wizard of Oz devoid of content - have made things worse than they could have been. And have been one of the reasons for so many of the scandals and disasters we have seen and are still paying for.
One reason we do not have as much money as we would like is because we are still, in part, paying for the financial crisis over a decade ago, a crisis brought about by a lot of apparently very clever people trained by these apparently very clever consultants. I am afraid - and I know that this is my particular perspective - that I really don’t buy into this myth of this cleverness. There is a type of stupidity that only the very clever are capable of - and the financial world (though not just it) is full of such examples.
The problem the UK has is that since 1980 government administration has been hollowed out and the public sector has lost a massive pool of talent which has not been replaced.
Sir Walter Marshall, last head of the CEGB, for example, warned that the generating margins of less than 9% would threaten the long term stability of supply, but the asset sweating approach after electricity privatisation didn`t care. The result is the current emerging crisis in UK power generation.
Privatisation for its own sake has carried a cost that is now being paid in £7500 per diem consultants. Meanwhile our political leaders do not have the experience or understanding of administration (because they are mostly PR Merchants themselves) to strengthen the skills of the civil service in critical areas... and growing failure and corruption is the result.
The chickens are coming home to roost.
Agree. Between 2010 and 2015, the Civil Service headcount was cut by 90,000 under Francis Maude's reforms. Guess what - the Civil Service no longer had the capacity to do everything it needed to do, so consultants were drafted in, on very high rates of pay, to provide support for a range of projects. In the branch I worked in, this was widespread. But at least the government could rightly claim that it had cut the size of the Civil Service. The cost, however, not so much.
Trump campaign reportedly pulling advertising in Wisconsin - further evidence they are going all in on a last stand in PA
He can afford to lose Wisconsin and Michigan. It makes sense to focus on PA.
Wisconsin not a battleground state is my sense of things.
A simpler explanation is that Trump is short of cash and can't afford to defend all of his 2016 gains. So he's having to go all in on one state with the little he has left.
Its much easier to give out free stuff than take it away....see all the Brown bungs still in place today, despite supposed austerity for best part of 10 years.
And once you open that box, calls for ever expanding access to the free scheme as new deserving groups are found.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Because JVT argued against a national lockdown at the Press Conference?
"Why do you know better than JVT, Sir Keir?"
I'm sure Sir Keir can counter using some of JVT's past comments, say on masks, to point out JVT is a bit rubbish.
During the government's latest coronavirus briefing, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer addressed questions about whether people in the UK should be wearing face masks.
Professor Jonathan Van Tam said he does not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK, saying "what matters now is social distancing".
It's a good article and obviously the Democrats think they have a chance.
Three questions here that may counter-act that thrust (1) Does 2018 act as a spur for Republicans to get out? As the piece says, no one thought Texas could / would turn blue so, like a "safe" seat, that might have dampened enthusiasm; (2) unlike 2018, this is a Presidential year - for Congress in 2018, Republican votes dropped sharply from 2016 but Democrat votes didn't. So what happens this time? (3) If Trump is picking up Latino support, how much does that act as a buffer on the trends?
I don't know the answer to any of them but I ask to counteract the view that Texas is destined to go Democrat.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
You know these are yesterday's polls right? If you go to 538, you can find all the polls contemporaneously, which is helpful for betting.
You often post polling late!
I post when I am available and to be quite frank it makes sod all difference whether a post is this morning or last night and if you are that desperate you can damn well post them yourself!!!!
Because JVT argued against a national lockdown at the Press Conference?
"Why do you know better than JVT, Sir Keir?"
I'm sure Sir Keir can counter using some of JVT's past comments, say on masks, to point out JVT is a bit rubbish.
During the government's latest coronavirus briefing, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer addressed questions about whether people in the UK should be wearing face masks.
Professor Jonathan Van Tam said he does not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK, saying "what matters now is social distancing".
Because JVT argued against a national lockdown at the Press Conference?
"Why do you know better than JVT, Sir Keir?"
I'm sure Sir Keir can counter using some of JVT's past comments, say on masks, to point out JVT is a bit rubbish.
During the government's latest coronavirus briefing, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer addressed questions about whether people in the UK should be wearing face masks.
Professor Jonathan Van Tam said he does not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK, saying "what matters now is social distancing".
JVT is one voice and the collective advice of SAGE said.......
JVT cited his friends overseas.
JVT wrong then, wrong now.
He is far from the only member of SAGE who has advocated totally duff advice. The lets only test hospital admissions is up there with masks don't do anything, so don't bother with them.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
Wait until your hear Liam Gallagher's views on HS2.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
It is absolutely relevant. They have a history of campaigning, unlike generic we will get you good brand deals type management / PR agency.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
Because JVT argued against a national lockdown at the Press Conference?
"Why do you know better than JVT, Sir Keir?"
I'm sure Sir Keir can counter using some of JVT's past comments, say on masks, to point out JVT is a bit rubbish.
During the government's latest coronavirus briefing, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer addressed questions about whether people in the UK should be wearing face masks.
Professor Jonathan Van Tam said he does not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK, saying "what matters now is social distancing".
Because JVT argued against a national lockdown at the Press Conference?
"Why do you know better than JVT, Sir Keir?"
I'm sure Sir Keir can counter using some of JVT's past comments, say on masks, to point out JVT is a bit rubbish.
During the government's latest coronavirus briefing, the Deputy Chief Medical Officer addressed questions about whether people in the UK should be wearing face masks.
Professor Jonathan Van Tam said he does not believe healthy people wearing them would reduce the spread of the disease in the UK, saying "what matters now is social distancing".
JVT is one voice and the collective advice of SAGE said.......
JVT cited his friends overseas.
JVT wrong then, wrong now.
He is far from the only member of SAGE who has advocated totally duff advice. The lets only test hospital admissions is up there with masks don't do anything, so don't bother with them.
To be fair only testing hospital admissions was only because we couldn't test more than that, no capacity.
Not advising cloth masks was an entirely different matter.
I've just received an email from "Donald J. Trump" addressed to "supporter" basically begging for money. Or for me to download his app.
Couple of red flags though. For one I have never signed up for emails from the Republicans so I have no idea how they got my email address, for another my email address they have sent it to is incorrect (there is a dot in my email missing, so it still comes to me but I always put the dot in when registering for anything).
Not sure if this is a scammer trying to rinse people and it's somehow gotten through my spam filter or "legitimate"? Not that it will affect how I ignore it either way.
The email supposedly has come from a domain ending in @victory.donaldtrump.com with a reply to ending in @campaigns.rnchq.com
LOL. You've been profiled!
LOL!
Though that they couldn't even get the email address right says a lot about the profiling ...
My email address is a pretty easy one to fake so a lot of spam comes to me. Normally all caught by the spam filter though, surprised this one got through.
I have a very old gmail account (from when they were first released) which I only use as an emergency account to access things if everything else fails.
The amount of Donald Trump begging emails I get in there is a sight to behold - there are 55 today and nothing else.
Ok thanks. My email is very old too, also from when they were first released but I still use it as my personal email. This is the first one of these I've seen though.
Was curious if the Trump campaign is so broke they're spamming everyone desperate for cash, or if it's fraudsters. I have no intention of clicking on the email again either way though if the campaign is so broke they're spamming people randomly that would be a bad sign for their campaign.
It's definitely a scam, but given what has happened to a lot of the money donated to Trump, it's not clear if Trump is the beneficiary of this scam or someone else is.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
Wait until your hear Liam Gallagher's views on HS2.
Well it won't be supersonic, it won't get you half the world away, so it's probably a case of "where did it all go wrong".
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
It is. They have a history of campaigning, unlike generic we will get you a brand deal type agency.
Twitter is a minority pursuit (<15% of the UK population) but where it gets its strength is disproportionate influence in the chattering / media classes (probably 80%+ penetration). It is a classic case of where the policy for the whole population is being driven by the wants of a (privileged) few.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
Marcus Rashford is 2/1 joint favourite with Lewis Hamilton for Sports Personality of the Year, as low as 6/4 at Hills. This is not just because he scored against PSG yesterday.
Well if you want Government support, get out the corrupt Jenrick, these people hold the North with contempt
You do have to wonder the rationale in sending Robert "Tory dinner saves developer £45m in public money" Jenrick to explain why they don't have the £5m in question.
We need to stop seeing this as some grand master plan that Cummings has created and that will turn out to be genius. The truth is they don't have a plan and they're just going through the motions.
It is becoming clearer that they won last year due to Labour's poorly perceived leadership and Brexit position, that allowed what is a useless, spineless and divided Government to not receive any real scrutiny. In some sense, the reverse of 2017.
I thought May was hopeless but I'd have her back in a heartbeat. Cameron would have handled this well.
Brown would have done a good job. Blair would have done fine. Major would have done well.
It's this Government and its total lack of talent that has got us here - and I hold myself responsible for supporting Corbyn for PM when it should have been obvious he was going to let this happen. I have let the country down with that support.
No, May was useless; you can't excuse the errors and faults of previous leaders simply because the new one turns out even worse. May actually knew (from the beginning) that where our country was heading on Brexit would be damaging and yet was both unable and unwilling to lift a finger to stop, or even ameliorate, it.
Fair point but I would have her back over Johnson any day.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
It is. They have a history of campaigning, unlike generic we will get you a brand deal type agency.
Twitter is a minority pursuit (<15% of the UK population) but where it gets its strength is disproportionate influence in the chattering / media classes (probably 80%+ penetration). It is a classic case of where the policy for the whole population is being driven by the wants of a (privileged) few.</p>
Do you have a reliable source for that <15% of the UK population use twitter?
It's a good article and obviously the Democrats think they have a chance.
Three questions here that may counter-act that thrust (1) Does 2018 act as a spur for Republicans to get out? As the piece says, no one thought Texas could / would turn blue so, like a "safe" seat, that might have dampened enthusiasm; (2) unlike 2018, this is a Presidential year - for Congress in 2018, Republican votes dropped sharply from 2016 but Democrat votes didn't. So what happens this time? (3) If Trump is picking up Latino support, how much does that act as a buffer on the trends?
I don't know the answer to any of them but I ask to counteract the view that Texas is destined to go Democrat.
I asked exactly the same question myself earlier this morning. And pointed out that the two of the three largest Republican counties have a larger early voting percentages than their Democratic voting counterparts.
The odds are maybe 2/1 in favour of the Republicans, I think (which is why Mike's bet is worth a small punt). But the Democrats will pick up state house seats whatever happens.
For bonus points - when Monitor went bust and got acquired by Deloitte, my mate there told me there was *serious consideration* of adopting Monitor's policy of hiring Oxbridge only.
Imagine being incompetent enough to run a consulting business into the ground, and then still finding people want to emulate you.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
Wait until your hear Liam Gallagher's views on HS2.
I remember reading Loaded when they were criticising the Spice Girls for praising Maggie T and they said "next month, we hear from Bucks Fizz on their detailed analysis of Stalin's collectivisation policy in the Ukraine in the 1930s".
It feels like we really have reached the parody level
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
Wait until your hear Liam Gallagher's views on HS2.
Well it won't be supersonic, it won't get you half the world away, so it's probably a case of "where did it all go wrong".
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
I post when I am available and to be quite frank it makes sod all difference whether a post is this morning or last night and if you are that desperate you can damn well post them yourself!!!!
I don't think it's very helpful to post minor polls from yesterday as people who are anxious to see new polls will already have seen them on an aggregator, and people who aren't interested in seeing new polls... won't be interested in seeing new polls.
However if you insist on doing it would you mind copying the content into a comment? Tweets expand really big and those Survey Monkey ones literally took me 7 screens of scrolling...
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
Am I the only person who thinks Keir is actually quite radical even compared to just five years ago?
The same people who pushed Burnham in the leadership contest into second place by supporting Corbyn...
When will the party as a whole realise they cannot win without persuading enough centrists who have voted Tory, perhaps quite often, to vote Labour. If the party regards SKS as a sellout, then Tories are not going to vote Labour.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
Well the government are already funding the child through benefits that go to the parents.
If you also promise to feed children directly then more parents will just stop bothering to feed them themselves.
The rule should be that they will feed the children if the parents aren't, but then they lose other cash benefits as they are not using them properly.
You know these are yesterday's polls right? If you go to 538, you can find all the polls contemporaneously, which is helpful for betting.
You often post polling late!
I post when I am available and to be quite frank it makes sod all difference whether a post is this morning or last night and if you are that desperate you can damn well post them yourself!!!!
Those of us in the know realise that we just need to look here for the latest daily updates in real time. It starts getting updated for the current day's polling in the early afternoon when the US wakes up.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
On the topic of the US Presidential Election, I find it fascinating just how heavily DC leans Democrat, but even so I thought it was spectacularly impressive achievement for Trump to get just 4.1% of the vote last time:
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
Well the government are already funding the child through benefits that go to the parents.
If you also promise to feed children directly then more parents will just stop bothering to feed them themselves.
The rule should be that they will feed the children if the parents aren't, but then they lose other cash benefits as they are not using them properly.
More costly than just paying for them, why stop during school holidays when possibly primary child career can’t work?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
Plenty of rich people sounding off who don’t stand for parliament, it’s a hobby pastime for most tories who have enough dosh in the bank to be able to go play politics and possibly make a bit more.
For bonus points - when Monitor went bust and got acquired by Deloitte, my mate there told me there was *serious consideration* of adopting Monitor's policy of hiring Oxbridge only.
Imagine being incompetent enough to run a consulting business into the ground, and then still finding people want to emulate you.
Sounds like Dido has learned the lessons of that debacle. ...What was the intellectual basis of this now vast enterprise of locating sustainable competitive advantage? As Stewart notes, it was “lacking any foundation in fact or logic.” Except where generated by government regulation, sustainable competitive advantage simply doesn’t exist...
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Perhaps only after MPs are made to give up their second jobs / consultancy fees / after dinner speeches / newspaper columns / directorates.
What they should do is give MPs a massive reset and then say "this is the only job you are doing" like what would happen with a normal employer.
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
You know these are yesterday's polls right? If you go to 538, you can find all the polls contemporaneously, which is helpful for betting.
You often post polling late!
I post when I am available and to be quite frank it makes sod all difference whether a post is this morning or last night and if you are that desperate you can damn well post them yourself!!!!
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
Plenty of rich people sounding off who don’t stand for parliament, it’s a hobby pastime for most tories who have enough dosh in the bank to be able to go play politics and possibly make a bit more.
Not saying one rule for Tories, one rule for others. It should be the same for all. I didn't like when Jenrick had that issue with Desmond, and I think Jenrick should have stepped down immediately.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
I'm sorry are you talking about Marcus Rashford or Dominic Cummings?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
I thought you were a Republican, MrEd. What happened to money=speech ?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
You have to be elected to campaign for underprivileged children to have school meals?
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
It is absolutely relevant. They have a history of campaigning, unlike generic we will get you good brand deals type management / PR agency.
The other reason why I think Rashford is driving this, is if you go back to last year in his Twitter feed when he took on this sponsorship of Fareshare, an obscure charity, you can see he was feeling his way, understanding the issues and driving the Fareshare campaign in a direction that he worked out to be the most effective. Signing up Jay-Z came later, I think, and was presumably part of the professionalisation that Rashford brings to the operation.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
I'm sorry are you talking about Marcus Rashford or Dominic Cummings?
Actually both but Cummings is at least appointed by the PM (so if you want to get rid of him....)
Am I the only person who thinks Keir is actually quite radical even compared to just five years ago?
Yes, some do genuinely want Labour to lose.
There are still plenty of recent entryists from far left sects and the CPGB who wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole until one of theirs became leader. Their aim now is for Starmer to fail so they can retake the Labour Party and have another go in 2029 or whenever. That's assuming a rationale for their behaviour, as opposed to the plausible alternative that their actions are motivated by pure spite alone.
I agree also that Starmer will present a radical manifesto that will be far less timid than Miliband's fare of 2015.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
Well the government are already funding the child through benefits that go to the parents.
If you also promise to feed children directly then more parents will just stop bothering to feed them themselves.
The rule should be that they will feed the children if the parents aren't, but then they lose other cash benefits as they are not using them properly.
More costly than just paying for them, why stop during school holidays when possibly primary child career can’t work?
Short term I'm sure that it is cheaper to just give in, but long term added yet another perverse incentive for parents not to bother looking after their children is going to cost a fortune.
On the topic of the US Presidential Election, I find it fascinating just how heavily DC leans Democrat, but even so I thought it was spectacularly impressive achievement for Trump to get just 4.1% of the vote last time:
So my question is, will he get more or less than 4.1% this time?
I'd say more: Not only is Trump's black support generally holding up pretty well, DC seems to be seeing quite a lot of gentrification, and I guess the votes of the incoming gentry are less lop-sidedly Dem than the displaced ex-residents.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
So he’s operating exactly how this government likes to operate - without scrutiny or accountability and on the basis of who you know and PR.
I agree with you that this is not how things should be done but this is how things are done by this government. The government is simply hoist by its own petard.
Do you think that they might learn the lesson and go back to doing things as they should be done: having open, transparent recruitment and procurement processes, for instance?
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
You have to be elected to campaign for underprivileged children to have school meals?
Let's substitute some of the words here:: "you have to be elected to campaign for tax for wealthy people to fall to 10%?".
Do you have to be elected to campaign for that? Absolutely not. But if the tax rate was dropped to 10% on the back of one individual pushing their agenda via Twitter and persuading the Government to change their policy, would you agree with it? My guess is not.
Your answer should be based on the principle, not whether you support the cause or not.
Stocky: Largely white Brits I take it, rather than migrant workers?
Probably so, but not necessarily. I`d like to hear more from @theProle on this.
Agree it was great insight into a demographic that 75% of PB contributors have no association with on that level.
It's interesting how this kind of breathless reportage from the building sites of Britain is dissected with such anthropological excitement on PB. I mean, are these people really so unknown to people here? I move in pretty bourgeois circles these days, perhaps even the global elite, but I went to a comprehensive school and have done a fair amount of low paid work in the past, and the fact that a lot of working class blokes don't like the EU, or anything vaguely foreign, or indeed have a low opinion of "political correctness gone mad" is hardly news to me.
Maybe it isn't but recognising those people and their views isn't the same as engaging with or addressing them.
It isn't an answer to say it's not news, you know them well, shrug your shoulders, just say they're wrong and move on.
It depends who you are. I am just a private citizen and it's not my job to educate and enlighten the masses, nor am I arrogant enough to think that I could. Live and let live is an entirely rational response to the fact that some people hold views that I disagree with. If I were a politician of course I would have to engage with them and find a way to bring some of them on board, without selling out my core beliefs or alienating other supporters. As the original poster notes, there are left wing economic messages that might resonate with them. Of course it is in the interests of the Tory party and press to play up the right wing cultural messages precisely because they don't want to engage with those economic views (hence create wedge issues like Brexit, statues etc). I just find it odd that these people seem to induce an almost anthropological fascination from some people here, as if they are an uncontacted Amazonian tribe. It makes me think that some people must have had quite a sheltered upbringing. It's also a bit reminiscent of the episode of Peep Show when Jeremy tries to be friends with their builder, or perhaps the Greek art student in Pulp's Common People.
I think your answer highlights the problem: engaging with them on economics is looking to find something that "resonates" but engaging with them on cultural messages is "playing up" to them. It's clear you find only one of those sets of concerns as legitimate.
The Tories have not created a wedge issue of statues, which didn't exist until 6 months ago. No-one from the centre-right involved in or agitating for any to come down in order to 'spark' a conflict. I think the real objection is that the Tories are now putting up a counter-argument to left-modernist views on things like white privilege, "racist" statues, gender recognition, and these views are indeed in line with many in the working class, and indeed plenty in the middle class, who see it for the nonsense it really is.
This is both unexpected, and unwelcomed, from those who've had it their own way for far too long, so is labelled as them starting a culture war when it's really just expanding the field of political debate.
But there is white privilege and there are racist statues, these issues need addressing and are not nonsense.
(1) I don't accept the term 'white privilege' - I do accept that in Western countries many white people haven't experienced racism in the way some minorities have. For that, I think it's good both listen to each other's point of view and try and understand it better. It's called talking. White privilege is an unhelpful convection that will proof entirely counterproductive - it straight way puts people onto the defensive as, actually, few white people have experienced privilege in their lives. It therefore leads to people disengaging and polarising. The language we use is very important, and we shouldn't racially finger point.
I think I can mostly agree with this from a left-wing point of view.
I accept that white privilege exists, if by privilege we are talking about a relative advantage.
I do not think that the language is at all helpful. In the vernacular privilege is viewed as an absolute - someone is privileged (ie a toff) or they are not.
The vast majority of people in the present economy are not privileged because they're in the position of having to sell their labour to keep a roof over their heads. Telling them that they're privileged is stupid nonsense almost designed to lose their support, even if it is true with a careful academic definition of the word.
Identity politics is such a dead end for the Left. The Left is about uniting everyone who is oppressed by the Capitalist class to stand together. Now, sure, as you encourage people to recognise and oppose class oppression they will naturally also recognise oppression on the basis of gender, race, etc. And as the Left is about helping those who are oppressed the consequence of providing support is obvious - but to turn that story of shared oppression on its head, to be continually identifying elements of privilege that divide people, is self-defeating
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
Marcus Rashford is a bit scary. From his Twitter feed it looks like he isn't content with just adding the normal celebrity stardust to the causes he sponsors. He looks at how he can leverage his status and communication channels to get the maximum result for the cause. He is one of the absolute best PR operators out there: he is totally focused, totally on message, relentless and engaging.
That might have something to do with that his PR is done by Jay-Z owned PR / promotional organisation. You think perhaps they assist with his tweeting?
Not really relevant. Celebrities tend to be represented by PR agencies but no-one is as effective as Marcus Rashford.
It is absolutely relevant. They have a history of campaigning, unlike generic we will get you good brand deals type management / PR agency.
The other reason why I think Rashford is driving this, is if you go back to last year in his Twitter feed when he took on this sponsorship of Fareshare, an obscure charity, you can see he was feeling his way, understanding the issues and driving the Fareshare campaign in a direction that he worked out to be the most effective. Signing up Jay-Z came later, I think, and was presumably part of the professionalisation that Rashford brings to the operation.
He didn't sign up Roc Nation, it was the other way around.
I don't doubt he believes in this cause, but they have admitted that Roc Nation drive the PR for this campaign and have done all year, hence why it is so professional.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Aren't footballers always being told off for earning so much money and then never giving back anything to society
Then he can give up his money being a footballer and stand for Parliament where he can get be elected.
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
Plenty of rich people sounding off who don’t stand for parliament, it’s a hobby pastime for most tories who have enough dosh in the bank to be able to go play politics and possibly make a bit more.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Interesting comment in the daily Staggers email from Stephen Bush:
"I find it hard to conceive of a situation where, eventually, the financial protections available in areas under the heaviest lockdowns aren't extended everywhere. As Tortoise's Chris Cook explains , the coronavirus economic shock extends well beyond parts of the country that have escaped major outbreaks. Devon and Cornwall have low levels of coronavirus transmission - but that is because they also have lower levels of tourism, and because their farms have lower levels of demand. If I can't go to St John's with my friend, then British farmers can't sell their goods to the restaurant. Increased amounts of homecooking does not sufficiently replace the lost demand.
Regional lockdowns allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the psychological and physical costs of lockdown. They do not allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the economic costs of lockdown.
Added to that, because our great cities are net importers of young people and workers, if your financial support package makes it impossible or simply too painful for those workers to remain where they are, they will return to their family homes - and at least some of them will bring the novel coronavirus with them."
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Rashford can post what he likes on twitter, the Gov't can do what it likes with regards policy. The fiscal prudence arguments, as with Manchester funding do start to ring a bit hollow though when there is so much clear money pissed away recently. It's a difficulty for the Gov't entirely of their own making.
I'd genuinely love to hear what Marcus Rashford's views are on monetary policy.
Surely this government would value Rashford's views regardless, given their contempt for the views of so-called "experts"?
Absolutely, and I have said for years that the complete lack of engagement with the subject of monetary policy is a disgrace.
I might be doing Marcus a disservice, but I suspect his focus is solely on the giving of money rather than on the raising of money.
What he is keen on is giving away other peoples money as his does not consider that it is a parents reposnsibility to feed a child, he considers that it is the Governments
So if a child is unlucky enough to have irresponsible or feckless parents then tough luck, the child should suffer and have chosen different parents?
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
If parents do not feed their children then the children should be taken into Local Authority care.
Slightly more expensive than feeding them I would think
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
Interesting comment in the daily Staggers email from Stephen Bush:
"I find it hard to conceive of a situation where, eventually, the financial protections available in areas under the heaviest lockdowns aren't extended everywhere. As Tortoise's Chris Cook explains , the coronavirus economic shock extends well beyond parts of the country that have escaped major outbreaks. Devon and Cornwall have low levels of coronavirus transmission - but that is because they also have lower levels of tourism, and because their farms have lower levels of demand. If I can't go to St John's with my friend, then British farmers can't sell their goods to the restaurant. Increased amounts of homecooking does not sufficiently replace the lost demand.
Regional lockdowns allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the psychological and physical costs of lockdown. They do not allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the economic costs of lockdown.
Added to that, because our great cities are net importers of young people and workers, if your financial support package makes it impossible or simply too painful for those workers to remain where they are, they will return to their family homes - and at least some of them will bring the novel coronavirus with them."
There is a logic to matching responses to local conditions, but the current mess in England isn't due just to Government incompetence. Having different responses in different places is arbitrary, unfair, confusing and possibly not that effective. There is a cost to avoiding blanket measures in other words.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
So he’s operating exactly how this government likes to operate - without scrutiny or accountability and on the basis of who you know and PR.
I agree with you that this is not how things should be done but this is how things are done by this government. The government is simply hoist by its own petard.
Do you think that they might learn the lesson and go back to doing things as they should be done: having open, transparent recruitment and procurement processes, for instance?
No, me neither.
Of course not. This Government is rapidly turning into one of the worst there has been.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
You are definitely trolling now.
Not at all. It is a legitimate question - how much influence should celebrities have over policy that impacts us all.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
Look, I fully accept your right to think that nobody is allowed to comment on politics unless elected. You are very welcome to lead by example.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
lol wut
I know, it's quaint
Presumably all the newspapers should shut down as well.
Different. You don't have to buy a newspaper - and it's out in the open. Marcus R is literally driving Government policy through his tweets.
Poor little government, how spineless they are if they cant cope with a footballer expressing his views. His campaign won because it resonated with people and Tory backbench MPs to the point the government reflected the publics view.
If he had campaigned for footballers to be able to drive at 120mph as they have faster cars and better reaction times than the public, however good his twitter feed was it would have absolutely zero traction.
He won the case on the arguments, and that is the only way he could win and influence government policy. He cant simply dictate it to the govt, that suggestion is absurd.
Following on from Rashford and Burnham I anticipate Sean Ryder's ideas on reform of social care to be the next Manc plan to make the government look like total arses.
The first two of those are definitely twisting Boris's melon, man.
If Marcus Rashford is so dedicated to these causes, he should give up football and stand for election
Why? Can you only be dedicated to something if you are an MP?
Because he is effectively driving Government policy without us (the voting public) having a say in the manner.
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
No it's not. A wealthy donor is bribing the Government. Rashford is trying to influence the Government without bribing. The government is free to ignore him. If they don't there is a reason whether it being the right thing to do or because the Government is frightened of public opinion.
Actually it is. The Government could - and should - ignore the donor because it is a bribe. Rashford "trying to influence" is actually a threat - give me what I want or I will campaign on this and make you unpopular.
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
So you're complaining that the he is driving policy without the public having a say, under a threat of turning public opinion against the Government if they don't do what he asks?
In summary, yes. Did you elect Marcus Rashford to make decisions for you? And what influence do you get over what he says?
Comments
These people literally want us to lose.
Am I the only person who thinks Keir is actually quite radical even compared to just five years ago?
With a bit of state destruction and shoddy rebuilding thrown in.
It hasn't quite worked out like that of course...
You often post polling late!
And once you open that box, calls for ever expanding access to the free scheme as new deserving groups are found.
* Edit - I already am following Scotland of course
JVT wrong then, wrong now.
Three questions here that may counter-act that thrust (1) Does 2018 act as a spur for Republicans to get out? As the piece says, no one thought Texas could / would turn blue so, like a "safe" seat, that might have dampened enthusiasm; (2) unlike 2018, this is a Presidential year - for Congress in 2018, Republican votes dropped sharply from 2016 but Democrat votes didn't. So what happens this time? (3) If Trump is picking up Latino support, how much does that act as a buffer on the trends?
I don't know the answer to any of them but I ask to counteract the view that Texas is destined to go Democrat.
Of course governments have a responsibility for the welfare of all children, regardless of their parents' capacity or willingness to do the right thing.
Not advising cloth masks was an entirely different matter.
The 800% match funding is a nice touch.
And pointed out that the two of the three largest Republican counties have a larger early voting percentages than their Democratic voting counterparts.
The odds are maybe 2/1 in favour of the Republicans, I think (which is why Mike's bet is worth a small punt).
But the Democrats will pick up state house seats whatever happens.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2012/11/20/what-killed-michael-porters-monitor-group-the-one-force-that-really-matters/#77b217c6747b
For bonus points - when Monitor went bust and got acquired by Deloitte, my mate there told me there was *serious consideration* of adopting Monitor's policy of hiring Oxbridge only.
Imagine being incompetent enough to run a consulting business into the ground, and then still finding people want to emulate you.
DISHONEST FUCKING C**T.
It feels like we really have reached the parody level
Sorted.
However if you insist on doing it would you mind copying the content into a comment? Tweets expand really big and those Survey Monkey ones literally took me 7 screens of scrolling...
At the moment, he is firing off his opinions and influencing Government policy and yet the rest of us don't really get a say in the decisions he has helped to push through. It's the equivalent of a wealthy donor sitting at the dinner table with a Cabinet minister and using their money to influence policy. Just because it is a cause you agree with, doesn't mean it is right.
If you also promise to feed children directly then more parents will just stop bothering to feed them themselves.
The rule should be that they will feed the children if the parents aren't, but then they lose other cash benefits as they are not using them properly.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/president-general/
All you need to do is to post that link.
I recommend using a D+ filter to get rid of the Survey Monkey spam.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington,_D.C.#Voting_rights_debate
So my question is, will he get more or less than 4.1% this time?
Call me quaint but, as I mentioned before, what he is doing is the equivalent of a wealthy donor using their influence to push through an agenda without proper scrutiny or the chance for people to vote on the matter.
...What was the intellectual basis of this now vast enterprise of locating sustainable competitive advantage? As Stewart notes, it was “lacking any foundation in fact or logic.” Except where generated by government regulation, sustainable competitive advantage simply doesn’t exist...
If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys, which is the problem we have with the MP system at the moment
What happened to money=speech ?
There are still plenty of recent entryists from far left sects and the CPGB who wouldn't touch Labour with a bargepole until one of theirs became leader. Their aim now is for Starmer to fail so they can retake the Labour Party and have another go in 2029 or whenever. That's assuming a rationale for their behaviour, as opposed to the plausible alternative that their actions are motivated by pure spite alone.
I agree also that Starmer will present a radical manifesto that will be far less timid than Miliband's fare of 2015.
Are principles worth zero these days?
https://order-order.com/2020/10/21/arts-council-gave-215305-in-coronavirus-recovery-to-solo-drag-act/
I agree with you that this is not how things should be done but this is how things are done by this government. The government is simply hoist by its own petard.
Do you think that they might learn the lesson and go back to doing things as they should be done: having open, transparent recruitment and procurement processes, for instance?
No, me neither.
Do you have to be elected to campaign for that? Absolutely not. But if the tax rate was dropped to 10% on the back of one individual pushing their agenda via Twitter and persuading the Government to change their policy, would you agree with it? My guess is not.
Your answer should be based on the principle, not whether you support the cause or not.
I accept that white privilege exists, if by privilege we are talking about a relative advantage.
I do not think that the language is at all helpful. In the vernacular privilege is viewed as an absolute - someone is privileged (ie a toff) or they are not.
The vast majority of people in the present economy are not privileged because they're in the position of having to sell their labour to keep a roof over their heads. Telling them that they're privileged is stupid nonsense almost designed to lose their support, even if it is true with a careful academic definition of the word.
Identity politics is such a dead end for the Left. The Left is about uniting everyone who is oppressed by the Capitalist class to stand together. Now, sure, as you encourage people to recognise and oppose class oppression they will naturally also recognise oppression on the basis of gender, race, etc. And as the Left is about helping those who are oppressed the consequence of providing support is obvious - but to turn that story of shared oppression on its head, to be continually identifying elements of privilege that divide people, is self-defeating
I don't doubt he believes in this cause, but they have admitted that Roc Nation drive the PR for this campaign and have done all year, hence why it is so professional.
It's almost certain he'll get more than that and if he's getting spanked to Barry Goldwater proportions who is to say he won't undershoot 50 million ?
"I find it hard to conceive of a situation where, eventually, the financial protections available in areas under the heaviest lockdowns aren't extended everywhere. As Tortoise's Chris Cook explains , the coronavirus economic shock extends well beyond parts of the country that have escaped major outbreaks. Devon and Cornwall have low levels of coronavirus transmission - but that is because they also have lower levels of tourism, and because their farms have lower levels of demand. If I can't go to St John's with my friend, then British farmers can't sell their goods to the restaurant. Increased amounts of homecooking does not sufficiently replace the lost demand.
Regional lockdowns allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the psychological and physical costs of lockdown. They do not allow you to avoid making everyone in the country pay the economic costs of lockdown.
Added to that, because our great cities are net importers of young people and workers, if your financial support package makes it impossible or simply too painful for those workers to remain where they are, they will return to their family homes - and at least some of them will bring the novel coronavirus with them."
In both cases, the driver is trying to use their disproportionate influence to push their view of the world.
Look at my answer to Roger. If he changed the words to "cut the tax on the wealthy to 10%" and it went through, what would be the uproar and cries about disproportionate influence?
In my view 50/50 which is the better approach.
If he had campaigned for footballers to be able to drive at 120mph as they have faster cars and better reaction times than the public, however good his twitter feed was it would have absolutely zero traction.
He won the case on the arguments, and that is the only way he could win and influence government policy. He cant simply dictate it to the govt, that suggestion is absurd.