Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
I think the answer is simpler. Ethnic minorities integrate and on average become more similar to white British over the generations. This tends to mean adopting the politics of their native peers. Hence Hindus and Sikhs have trended blue over the years, as well as British West Africans. The poorer and less well educated communities much less so.
No political party has a permanent right to an ethnic groups vote, and class tends to trump race.
There is a lot of truth in all of that but based on my reading of the study that is not the likely explanation in this case. The study basically finds that the Tories did better in areas with very small but increasing minority populations. If it was due to shifting views *within* minorities then you would see the swings to the Tories in the areas with *already high* shares of minorities. Of course, minorities moving to predominantly white areas may be more likely to be Tory voters than their peers who don't move (but still probably less likely to be tories than the white people living there already, I would have thought).
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
On the contrary, there is evidence that the rest of the world is catching up with progressive values, albeit with some lag.
The trend with age suggests that this is likely to continue.
Huge difference between the West and much of Eastern Europe, Africa and Asia there, 86% of Britons and 85% of Canadians and 82% of Americans and 92% of French under 30 accepting of Homosexuality.
By contrast only 14% of Kenyans and 37% of Indians and 31% of Russians, 34% of Turks and just 9% of Nigerians under 30 accepting of homosexuality.
Yes, that is why I said lag. 15 years ago it was only 1% of Kenyans.
There is nothing specific against it in the US Constitution. Some scholars argue that precedent on interpretation of the Constitution rules it out.
As other have pointed out, this only effects Federal crimes.
I rather think that Biden would like the matter dealt with in a way that means he is not seen as being involved. So state level prosecutions first and foremost. The federal case will be held up by a series of deep, long running enquiries, which will report years from now.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The author is, is ever, free and easy with taxpayers money. I wonder if he/she knows what percentage of people pick up infections in hospitality outlets?
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Yes, quite an eyesore and a pain to maintain.
Suggest to Mrs Stocky a Spa break instead, at somewhere like Ragdale Hall. One of Mrs Foxy's favourite spots, and I have to confess that I rather like it too every now and then.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
Basically the study finds that areas which are very white but have seen a recent increase in the non white population eg Barnsley (proportionately a large increase on a small base) swung to the Tories. This is unlikely to have been because the incomers were themselves Tories. Eg in the Barnsley case the swing was much larger than the increase in minorities. Rather it is likely to have been a reaction by the White population ("we're going to turn into Bradford, I don't recognise the place any more, you never hear English spoken in the shops anymore etc etc"). Whereas in Lewisham (where I live) you have an area with a large non white population which is if anything becoming slightly more white and swinging to Labour. Again, not a surprise and is driven by left leaning types like me moving into the area, attracted by its diversity. Another factor I guess is Eastern European immigration - largely non voters but more likely to be displacing Labour voters I would imagine so probably associated with a swing to the Tories. (Eastern Europeans who become citizens are in many ways natural Tories I suspect but Brexit may have pissed them off).
That sounds plausible, and much like the situation in this part of NE London. And it's not entirely about skin colour or religion as much as about change in general. I'm not a native to Romford, and I've recently had a couple of years away, and the change in the population, built environment and range of businesses is striking. It's not about better or worse, though the incomers appear richer, it's just different. More like the rest of London. Hipper (though not hipster-er; we're not gentrified Hackney, thank goodness). There are places calling themselves "coffee shops" not "cafes".
Political relevance? Romford's brand of populist conservatism, embodied by Andrew Rosindell has a way to go, enough to last him his time in the Commons. But his successor might not find it so easy.
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
You need to put your foot down there, I think.
Then again - an aquaintance in the hobby engineering line had a hobby of building ride on mini-steam engine trains.
These are rather valuable, when you sell them.
So, when he finished one, he sold it. To make room for the next one.
This paid for (among other things) a top end cruise, which the wife was very, very happy with.
He was strictly instructed to "get back in the shed and build the next one", when they got back... which was a change in attitude to his previous train building efforts.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
Basically the study finds that areas which are very white but have seen a recent increase in the non white population eg Barnsley (proportionately a large increase on a small base) swung to the Tories. This is unlikely to have been because the incomers were themselves Tories. Eg in the Barnsley case the swing was much larger than the increase in minorities. Rather it is likely to have been a reaction by the White population ("we're going to turn into Bradford, I don't recognise the place any more, you never hear English spoken in the shops anymore etc etc"). Whereas in Lewisham (where I live) you have an area with a large non white population which is if anything becoming slightly more white and swinging to Labour. Again, not a surprise and is driven by left leaning types like me moving into the area, attracted by its diversity. Another factor I guess is Eastern European immigration - largely non voters but more likely to be displacing Labour voters I would imagine so probably associated with a swing to the Tories. (Eastern Europeans who become citizens are in many ways natural Tories I suspect but Brexit may have pissed them off).
That sounds plausible, and much like the situation in this part of NE London. And it's not entirely about skin colour or religion as much as about change in general. I'm not a native to Romford, and I've recently had a couple of years away, and the change in the population, built environment and range of businesses is striking. It's not about better or worse, though the incomers appear richer, it's just different. More like the rest of London. Hipper (though not hipster-er; we're not gentrified Hackney, thank goodness). There are places calling themselves "coffee shops" not "cafes".
Political relevance? Romford's brand of populist conservatism, embodied by Andrew Rosindell has a way to go, enough to last him his time in the Commons. But his successor might not find it so easy.
Yeah, I am not criticising or judging people who dislike change. Or calling them racists (which seems to be a bigger crime than actually being a racist). Just trying to understand the phenomenon. It strikes me that the spin being put on the article's findings look implausible, not least arithmetically.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
I think the answer is simpler. Ethnic minorities integrate and on average become more similar to white British over the generations. This tends to mean adopting the politics of their native peers. Hence Hindus and Sikhs have trended blue over the years, as well as British West Africans. The poorer and less well educated communities much less so.
No political party has a permanent right to an ethnic groups vote, and class tends to trump race.
There is a lot of truth in all of that but based on my reading of the study that is not the likely explanation in this case. The study basically finds that the Tories did better in areas with very small but increasing minority populations. If it was due to shifting views *within* minorities then you would see the swings to the Tories in the areas with *already high* shares of minorities. Of course, minorities moving to predominantly white areas may be more likely to be Tory voters than their peers who don't move (but still probably less likely to be tories than the white people living there already, I would have thought).
Yes rate of change is also significant. We saw that with Brexit voting.
I think though that race and class effects on voting are often exaggerated. Just as Remain got 30% of the vote in Boston, there are massive variations in individual voters behaviour, even when there are significant differences between means in voting between groups. On top of our overlapping identities we also have considerable idiosyncrasies.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser side of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
533 cases in NI today after only 79 yesterday, and in the 300s in the days before. So there was some sort of reporting holdup yesterday.
The drop in numbers for England yesterday were also suspiciously large. I await to here that the excel import script hit some new bump in the road, due to poor programming.
Remember a couple of weeks ago we had the flip occurrence, 35k cases in a day.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
I think the answer is simpler. Ethnic minorities integrate and on average become more similar to white British over the generations. This tends to mean adopting the politics of their native peers. Hence Hindus and Sikhs have trended blue over the years, as well as British West Africans. The poorer and less well educated communities much less so.
No political party has a permanent right to an ethnic groups vote, and class tends to trump race.
There is a lot of truth in all of that but based on my reading of the study that is not the likely explanation in this case. The study basically finds that the Tories did better in areas with very small but increasing minority populations. If it was due to shifting views *within* minorities then you would see the swings to the Tories in the areas with *already high* shares of minorities. Of course, minorities moving to predominantly white areas may be more likely to be Tory voters than their peers who don't move (but still probably less likely to be tories than the white people living there already, I would have thought).
Yes rate of change is also significant. We saw that with Brexit voting.
I think though that race and class effects on voting are often exaggerated. Just as Remain got 30% of the vote in Boston, there are massive variations in individual voters behaviour, even when there are significant differences between means in voting between groups. On top of our overlapping identities we also have considerable idiosyncrasies.
Yes absolutely. It is easy to stereotype people but we are all individuals. Indeed people are infinitely more interesting than politics or the media give them credit for.
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
--AS
Age related hearing loss tends to affect higher pitches as I recall, so more effect on following female rather than male voices.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
In the meantime, the outgoing administration is not displaying much in the way of clemency:
William Barr’s Lame-Duck Execution Spree Is Unprecedented https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/william-barr-lame-duck-execution-spree-is-unprecedented.html Last week, the Trump administration announced that it would continue to carry out executions in the days and weeks leading up to the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, with the last one now scheduled just five days before Biden takes office on Jan. 20, 2021. This bloodthirsty decision is another and particularly grotesque way in which President Donald Trump and his Justice Department are defying the norms and conventions for modern presidential transitions.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports that the last time an outgoing administration did anything remotely similar was more than a century ago, in 1889. At that time Grover Cleveland, the first Democrat to be elected president after the Civil War and the only president ever to have served as an executioner*...
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser end of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
There was a strong belief in the 80s and 90s (and to today, to be frank) that we shouldn't "preach Western values", because of what has come to be called "talking down"
A classic example of this was Roy Hattersley and his belief that *providing police protection* to Salman Rushdie was inflammatory. Well, it was. Very inflammatory...
We have 2 choices -
- Have a set of universal values and defend them. This entails being rude to some people. - Or accept multiple sets of values. If the later you will have to learn to like some things. That you won't like.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
The chart in the report doesn't suggest to me that much is actually happening. I don't know whether they did much more than just averages (means, in fact, which are problematic for looking at differences when the underlying numbers vary so much - in a very diverse area, more likely to vote labour, there's limited scope for large % increases in non-white population), but there are a few Con-trending outliers at the top of the graph that may skew up the measurements.
Also, no consideration of deprivation changes or other measures of SES.
In short, I'm not convinced this isn't just a load of bollocks.
Basically the study finds that areas which are very white but have seen a recent increase in the non white population eg Barnsley (proportionately a large increase on a small base) swung to the Tories. This is unlikely to have been because the incomers were themselves Tories. Eg in the Barnsley case the swing was much larger than the increase in minorities. Rather it is likely to have been a reaction by the White population ("we're going to turn into Bradford, I don't recognise the place any more, you never hear English spoken in the shops anymore etc etc"). Whereas in Lewisham (where I live) you have an area with a large non white population which is if anything becoming slightly more white and swinging to Labour. Again, not a surprise and is driven by left leaning types like me moving into the area, attracted by its diversity. Another factor I guess is Eastern European immigration - largely non voters but more likely to be displacing Labour voters I would imagine so probably associated with a swing to the Tories. (Eastern Europeans who become citizens are in many ways natural Tories I suspect but Brexit may have pissed them off).
That sounds plausible, and much like the situation in this part of NE London. And it's not entirely about skin colour or religion as much as about change in general. I'm not a native to Romford, and I've recently had a couple of years away, and the change in the population, built environment and range of businesses is striking. It's not about better or worse, though the incomers appear richer, it's just different. More like the rest of London. Hipper (though not hipster-er; we're not gentrified Hackney, thank goodness). There are places calling themselves "coffee shops" not "cafes".
Political relevance? Romford's brand of populist conservatism, embodied by Andrew Rosindell has a way to go, enough to last him his time in the Commons. But his successor might not find it so easy.
Yeah, I am not criticising or judging people who dislike change. Or calling them racists (which seems to be a bigger crime than actually being a racist). Just trying to understand the phenomenon. It strikes me that the spin being put on the article's findings look implausible, not least arithmetically.
Absolutely! After all, one of the key instincts of normal Conservatism is to be cautious about change. If the new political battleground is more social than economic, then the two parties seem to have made very different bets about what happens next.
Conservatives have bet that people will continue to move left-to-right as they get older. That it doesn't matter that their core vote is literally dying off, because they will be replaced by the middle-aged. That worked when the battleground was economic, it's not so obvious that it works for cultural matters.
Labour have bet that people's social attitudes are more fixed; that we broadly carry the ideas about culture that we get in our youth as we get older.
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
--AS
Age related hearing loss tends to affect higher pitches as I recall, so more effect on following female rather than male voices.
I will definitely use this explanation (excuse). It doesnt help when I register I am being spoken to after about 3 words and if those were crucial I need to ask for a repeat, which often generates much annoyance.
Another thing I seem to get with netflix a lot is that their loud bits are v loud and their quiet bits are too quiet. Doesnt seem to happen on other channels. Do modern TVs have such a thing as a sound contrast adjustment to bring the extremes in a bit?
If you live in Wales, better make sure you have got your oven gloves for Christmas dinner, because if the rise in cases continues they will be back to banning their sale again soon.
The more I read about the 'furious' tory backbenchers the more I think its a staged phoney war to leave a get out in case there ever is a new party of the right 'some in the party were opposed to this of course blah blah'
Its like a pro-wrestling match. Staged for the punters.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
--AS
Age related hearing loss tends to affect higher pitches as I recall, so more effect on following female rather than male voices.
I will definitely use this explanation (excuse). It doesnt help when I register I am being spoken to after about 3 words and if those were crucial I need to ask for a repeat, which often generates much annoyance.
Another thing I seem to get with netflix a lot is that their loud bits are v loud and their quiet bits are too quiet. Doesnt seem to happen on other channels. Do modern TVs have such a thing as a sound contrast adjustment to bring the extremes in a bit?
We find we have to replay bits because of mumbling on films. often after doing that we are none the wiser.
We found a 'clear voice setting' on our TV and that helped although it did make the sound less atmospheric. It is a Samsung. It is odd because our more modern Samsung doesn't have it.
What was the clown thinking of, hinting in PMQs that the government might be sticking with its manifesto promise?
As it is, the compromise is that the reduction is “temporary”, thus no-one ends up happy.
As for Rishi, what a damp squib! Describes the dimensions of the huge hole we are in, without so much as a hint as to how we are going to get out of it. The aid cut has been spent on defence, the public sector pay saving is reduced by exempting the lower paid (good politics, there), who’ll be getting 1% plus. He’s kicked the ball down the road until the spring budget, which is fair enough, except that his statement didn’t live up to expectations based on what was trailed (or leaked).
In time, the Tories may come to regret not announcing the bad financial news at the same time as the crisis, when people might have been more receptive.
Meanwhile the rabbit of the levelling up fund - typical Whitehall insistence that local communities bid for and jump through hoops to get some extra funding, trying to maintain the treasury grip on every extra £.. Why can’t we trust our local government, which is what it is there for?
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Penguin Random House Staff Confront Publisher About New Jordan Peterson Book
During a tense town hall, staff cried and expressed dismay with the publishing giant's decision to publish 'Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.'
“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,” a junior employee who is a member of the LGBTQ community and who attended the town hall told VICE World News.
Its a bit like saying we should have banned Hackett polo shirts, because the hooligans decided they liked them...now if they are good clothes or not, that's a different matter...
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
--AS
Age related hearing loss tends to affect higher pitches as I recall, so more effect on following female rather than male voices.
Supportive message. I've got that too. And I've got the hearing charts to prove it.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
A recent poll indicated 60% would support a reduction in foreign aid so not just a right wing conservative hope as many are trying to make out
I`ve fessed up to my wife about the betting and she wants me to spend some of my BF winnings on a hot tub.
But... hot tubs are naff aren`t they? Like personalised number-plates and Simon Cowell?
Thoughts?
Happy wife, happy life.
Jeez. Yet another wife tax then.
Rebate in earache though (channeling 70's comedian for a moment).
My wife (a physician) sent me to the ENT specialist to test my hearing as I often do not hear her. The ENT, reviewing my hearing test results, claimed I had "Male pattern hearing loss". My hearing is impaired in the range of female voices. True story.
It's well established that, as well as single very loud events causing damage, cumulative exposure results in hearing loss in specific frequencies. You must have had your ear talked off.
--AS
Age related hearing loss tends to affect higher pitches as I recall, so more effect on following female rather than male voices.
I will definitely use this explanation (excuse). It doesnt help when I register I am being spoken to after about 3 words and if those were crucial I need to ask for a repeat, which often generates much annoyance.
Another thing I seem to get with netflix a lot is that their loud bits are v loud and their quiet bits are too quiet. Doesnt seem to happen on other channels. Do modern TVs have such a thing as a sound contrast adjustment to bring the extremes in a bit?
We find we have to replay bits because of mumbling on films. often after doing that we are none the wiser.
We found a 'clear voice setting' on our TV and that helped although it did make the sound less atmospheric. It is a Samsung. It is odd because our more modern Samsung doesn't have it.
Thanks. We have a toshiba. Quite low end but only a year old or so.
If you live in Wales, better make sure you have got your oven gloves for Christmas dinner, because if the rise in cases continues they will be back to banning their sale again soon.
I think there was a bit of underreporting with the 595 yesterday there as well, and accordingly catchup today. Data since end of firebreak is noisy but more or less flat. But flat isn't good enough with Christmas coming up, so you're probably right.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
You’re clearly not understanding that by linking spend to GDP, the budget is already taking the hit of the sweeping economic damage pro-rata.
... Meanwhile the rabbit of the levelling up fund - typical Whitehall insistence that local communities bid for and jump through hoops to get some extra funding, trying to maintain the treasury grip on every extra £.. Why can’t we trust our local government, which is what it is there for?
Thought that was obvious - like the New Towns Fund before, this is a way to funnel money to Tory marginals. Expect to see Sunak's signature all over Tory MP leaflets in northern marginals as a result.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Professional Footballers' Association chief executive Gordon Taylor will stand down at the end of the season - two years after first announcing his intention to do so.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser end of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
There was a strong belief in the 80s and 90s (and to today, to be frank) that we shouldn't "preach Western values", because of what has come to be called "talking down"
A classic example of this was Roy Hattersley and his belief that *providing police protection* to Salman Rushdie was inflammatory. Well, it was. Very inflammatory...
We have 2 choices -
- Have a set of universal values and defend them. This entails being rude to some people. - Or accept multiple sets of values. If the later you will have to learn to like some things. That you won't like.
It has to be first. Caveats being (i) there's no general moral imperative for rudeness and (ii) these universal values we must defend are actually one core value - that everyone has the right of equality under the law and to do as they please within the law unless they are doing or saying things which interfere with those rights in others. In which case those things they are doing or saying should be either themselves against the law (which solves the problem and returns to the core value) or should be discouraged in other ways.
What was the clown thinking of, hinting in PMQs that the government might be sticking with its manifesto promise?
As it is, the compromise is that the reduction is “temporary”, thus no-one ends up happy.
As for Rishi, what a damp squib! Describes the dimensions of the huge hole we are in, without so much as a hint as to how we are going to get out of it. The aid cut has been spent on defence, the public sector pay saving is reduced by exempting the lower paid (good politics, there), who’ll be getting 1% plus. He’s kicked the ball down the road until the spring budget, which is fair enough, except that his statement didn’t live up to expectations based on what was trailed (or leaked).
In time, the Tories may come to regret not announcing the bad financial news at the same time as the crisis, when people might have been more receptive.
Meanwhile the rabbit of the levelling up fund - typical Whitehall insistence that local communities bid for and jump through hoops to get some extra funding, trying to maintain the treasury grip on every extra £.. Why can’t we trust our local government, which is what it is there for?
Yup. Nowhere enough cash where it is needed, and nowhere enough apportionment of the coming bill so that people can get their heads around it. So by the spring budget we will have another swathe of bankrupted businesses and unemployed people and only then will the government start talking about who will be paying - the people who shamefully and solely down to their own deficiencies don't have a job.
An aside I just remembered from university, which may be of some use when considering public views on spending and cuts.
If you have groups participating in a psych study, and tell them they can either receive £10 or £5, but if they go for £10 then other groups receive that too, an awful lot of them prefer the fiver.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
You can argue for the benefits of the various foreign wars we've fought over the last thirty years, but they're more likely to have added to terrorism than prevent it.
What exactly do you think Putin is planning? Russia is run by gangsters, not ideologues who want to attack the UK.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser side of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
Spot on. The belief that nice progressive liberalism is a life style choice plucked from a shelf rather than a process involving hard yards and a continuing examination of one's own primitive sentiment is depressingly common. As you imply some of those holding that view seem also to believe that considerable leeway should be given to all sorts of deplorable ideas just because, and even that many of the folk holding these ideas are very fine people.
Let's hear it for muscular progressive liberalism!
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
Rubbish. You can argue for the benefits of the various foreign wars we've fought over the last thirty years, but to suggest they've prevented terrorism is nonsense.
What exactly do you think Putin is planning? Russia is run by gangsters, not ideologues who want to attack the UK.
Russia is a threat not only to its neighbours but Europe as a whole under Putin, not just from invasion but poisonings etc and as we know counter terrorism is increasingly important across the West
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Hey Phillip. How about I let you in on a little secret.
Sometimes, politicians say things that aren't true. Even politicians you approve of.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
This is much more about populist politics than the rounding-error reduction in borrowing.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
What a completely pointless comment, as you'd never disagree with a Conservative government policy.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
Indeed, voting not to cut overseas aid might go down well with voters in Islington and Oxford, it would go down like a lead balloon in the Red Wall and Starmer knows that as do Sunak and Boris
If we are looking at the raw politics of this for 2021 then temporarily cutting the aid budget for that year by £4bn, and creating a new levelling-up fund for for the North for *precisely* that same amount, will be heard loud and clear by voters in the Red Wall - who will take it into account in the local and mayoral elections.
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Shame it's not £4bn as £300m of the new levelling-up fund is stolen from the Town Improvement fund.
Not that a lot of people will notice that piece of sleight of hand.
Diverse places get gentrified, become whiter, & vote more for Labour, but this prices the non white British out, and the places they move to start voting more Tory, seems to be the conclusion of this research.. I think?
I am much reminded of a dinner, where a progressive friend got exposed to social/political views of Ghanian and Nigerians of my aquaintance.
The Western world is accelerating faster and faster into a social Singularity - we are becoming increasingly hard to understand to a big chunk of the rest of the world. Many of the values we hold (or barely think of as common place) are quite simply "WTF?!?" to many others.
So what?
Expecting everyone to be a nice progressive liberal just because progressive liberals are nice is not how the world actually works.
If you want people to be nice progressive liberals, they you will need to stand up for nice progressive liberalism. Advocate it. Educate about it. And there will be push back. Which is to be be expected.
I totally agree with your 2nd para. Well said - apart from the snarky use of "nice". But I really don't know where you get this stuff as in your 1st para. It's most odd. All the people of leftish views you meet seem to have walked straight out of the screen of a Twitter parody account. Progressive liberals are not all of a sweet disposition, of course they're not. Look at me. I'm a right old pain in the pipe much of the time. I'm full of bad thoughts and primitive sentiment. But what I try to do is fight this in myself rather than shrug and say it's human nature or (worse) wallow in it. It's my biggest beef with the populist right of politics that they encourage rather discourage the baser side of the spectrum of human thought and emotion.
Excellent, though-provoking post.
Very good - especially the "right old pain in the pipe" bit.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
I am interested as to how you pick and chose your undeserving wealthy recipients of public money. Your silence over Dido Harding and Kate Bingham was deafening!
Since the Chancellor of the Exchequer has literally said he can't afford to pay that then I'm assuming they've proposed where they'll find the money, yes?
Hey Phillip. How about I let you in on a little secret.
Sometimes, politicians say things that aren't true. Even politicians you approve of.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
This is much more about populist politics than the rounding-error reduction in borrowing.
By a strange coincidence the Levelling Up fund is also worth 0.2% of GDP, exactly the savings generated by cutting the aid budget. Isn't it crazy how these things line up! (more seriously, doesn't 0.2% of GDP seem like a rather paltry sum of money for the government’s alleged chief policy priority?)
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as CEO at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
It seems this afternoon we know the cost of everything and the value of nothing !!
Could the Overseas Aid Budget be better spent? Undoubtedly - some of the countries we help don't need the help we are providing and there are other areas of the world which don't get enough.
There's a debate to be had about how and where the money is or should be spent but the principle of richer countries helping poorer isn't one with which I have an issue. 0.7% of GDP is a moveable feast as we know but in the grand scheme of things it isn't much and obsessing on one person's remuneration and living arrangements is just petty and small-minded.
There is certainly relative poverty in this country - look at Cornwall for example - but there isn't absolute poverty and the alleviation of that is, I believe, a reasonable and civilised ambition.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
There is no chance Labour will be in two minds. They might feel they need to support Johnson on Covid but supporting him on removing aid would be insane-as indeed is the policy.
By the look of him, he’s been spending too much money on boozy lunches.
Nasty nasty politics from you.
I'm not a fan of Edward Leigh but he's got an incurable medical condition that causes that appearance.
Do you mock people with cerebral palsy as well for cheap gags?
Thanks for explaining that.
So I had a look on Wikipedia. It’s not the most serious medical condition in the world (and small beer compared to my own, which is also little known or misunderstood and also used to put me on the receiving end of barbs when I was politically active) - any comparison with Cerebral Palsy seems inappropriate hyperbole to me. It is also perhaps unfortunate that Wikipedia also says that the condition is exacerbated by spicy foods and alcohol.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
You’re clearly not understanding that by linking spend to GDP, the budget is already taking the hit of the sweeping economic damage pro-rata.
That's true but that just means the amount of cash available dramatically fluctuates each year and *always* has to be spent regardless, leading to wasted billions.
I honestly think it's a poor way of doing it, and undermines public credibility and support for it.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
There's some truth here, but we really need to get away from the metric being 'spending'. It was bad for aid and it's bad for defence. A nice shiny iPad for everyone at the MOD is 'defence spending' and this is exactly the sort of thing that happened in DFID when they had to use up their gargantuan budget. But it has no effect on military capability or the security of the nation.Size of the fleet. Number of aircraft. Size of army. These are some of the measures, probably not that well chosen I admit, that we should be using to measure our armed forces.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
You’re clearly not understanding that by linking spend to GDP, the budget is already taking the hit of the sweeping economic damage pro-rata.
That's true but that just means the amount of cash available dramatically fluctuates each year and *always* has to be spent regardless, leading to wasted billions.
I honestly think it's a poor way of doing it, and undermines public credibility and support for it.
My judgement is clearly coloured by having made several visits to Rwanda a decade or so back, and seen the tremendous difference our aid spending can make, in the field.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
Defence.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
We need more spending on defence to protect us from Putin and terrorism and the government have correctly increased defence spending
Rubbish. You can argue for the benefits of the various foreign wars we've fought over the last thirty years, but to suggest they've prevented terrorism is nonsense.
What exactly do you think Putin is planning? Russia is run by gangsters, not ideologues who want to attack the UK.
Russia is a threat not only to its neighbours but Europe as a whole under Putin, not just from invasion but poisonings etc and as we know counter terrorism is increasingly important across the West
Do you genuinely think Russia wants to invade us?
Counter terrorism is expensive, but not having as many bombs to drop would likely prevent as much terrorism as an extra few billion on super weapons, or a new robot army.
As the current rate is legally mandated, will it require legislation to reduce it ?
Cutting it was/is a mistake. Especially as there is something actually useful to do with it that 95% of people wouldn't actually mind it being spent on.
I don't disagree. I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
It could be close - conhome thought it might fail.
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
There is no chance Labour will be in two minds. They might feel they need to support Johnson on Covid but supporting him on removing aid would be insane-as indeed is the policy.
And to be honest that is why Labour will not recover the red wall seats, rightly or wrongly
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
I am interested as to how you pick and chose your undeserving wealthy recipients of public money. Your silence over Dido Harding and Kate Bingham was deafening!
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
IRC is a US based NGO (Miliband is based in NYC). His salary may look excessive but it simply reflects the skewed distribution of income in the US, where corporate CEOs get huge salaries and big charities hoping to compete for talent also pay a lot for the top jobs. More importantly, the UK payments to IRC go to fund specific programmes that they run with some of the most desparate people in the world and not to pay Mr Miliband's salary. HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
Re Christmas rules....this advice seems the most sensible of you must see people
According to Prof Noakes, people must dream up creative new options for Christmas That could range from meeting virtually on Zoom, going for a walk, braving the weather for a picnic, or even delaying big gatherings until next summer.
Arranging to meet up for a winter walk seems a very sensible way of catching up with people while minimising risks. Instead i fear it will be all popping round to peoples homes, staying inside for 2-3hrs, sharing the left overs and nibbles...
Plan a big family dinner and gathering for next summer. "Delayed Christmas"
Honestly the government should have done this instead and given people a 4 day weekend for it.
Yes I advocated a delayed Christmas bank holiday next summer on here a week or two ago! Makes much more sense especially since Eid, Divali, Passover etc all screwed up too.
They’ve already announced a four-day weekend at the beginning of next June, in honour of the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee.
Everyone should be encouraged to use that weekend, to have the Christmas celebrations that couldn’t happen in December.
The more I read about the 'furious' tory backbenchers the more I think its a staged phoney war to leave a get out in case there ever is a new party of the right 'some in the party were opposed to this of course blah blah'
Its like a pro-wrestling match. Staged for the punters.
Is this the face that shipped a thousand lunches? Although TBF his basic point about waste is quite right.
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
IRC is a US based NGO (Miliband is based in NYC). His salary may look excessive but it simply reflects the skewed distribution of income in the US, where corporate CEOs get huge salaries and big charities hoping to compete for talent also pay a lot for the top jobs. More importantly, the UK payments to IRC go to fund specific programmes that they run with some of the most desparate people in the world and not to pay Mr Miliband's salary. HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
Oh it is very worthy of PB and if it annoys leftwing handwringers like you who are completely out of touch with the 60% of the population who think we spend too much on overseas aid especially when at a time of deficit all to the good!! https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1330571816272793610?s=20
If IRC spent more of their own money on projects rather than Mr Miliband's salary they would not have to rely on UK taxpayers to fill the gap and his salary easily puts him in the top 1% of even US earners
If people want to spend 0.2% of GDP more in Aid then I suggest they suggest where we spend 0.2% less instead.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I found the view of The Times convincing on this. Basically, the crude target means the amount of aid can dramatically fluctuate from year to year, depending on whether the economy is booming or crashing, and this can lead to billions be deposited at the World Bank just to meet it - with an awful lot going to NGOs and consultants.
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
Good idea, we might also look at cutting some of the vast salaries in the aid sector, David Miliband for example is on $1 million a year as ceo at International Rescue plus $50 000 a year housing allowance, I expect he could afford a pretty comfortable lifestyle on half or even a quarter of that while the money actually goes where it is needed rather than funding his restaurant and travel bill!
IRC is a US based NGO (Miliband is based in NYC). His salary may look excessive but it simply reflects the skewed distribution of income in the US, where corporate CEOs get huge salaries and big charities hoping to compete for talent also pay a lot for the top jobs. More importantly, the UK payments to IRC go to fund specific programmes that they run with some of the most desparate people in the world and not to pay Mr Miliband's salary. HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
What was Miliband's track record as a corporate CEO?
Comments
As other have pointed out, this only effects Federal crimes.
I rather think that Biden would like the matter dealt with in a way that means he is not seen as being involved. So state level prosecutions first and foremost. The federal case will be held up by a series of deep, long running enquiries, which will report years from now.
https://twitter.com/piersmorgan/status/1331608907735855105?s=20
Suggest to Mrs Stocky a Spa break instead, at somewhere like Ragdale Hall. One of Mrs Foxy's favourite spots, and I have to confess that I rather like it too every now and then.
https://www.ragdalehall.co.uk/
Incidentally if you go on their mailing list they send discount offers fairly frequently.
Political relevance? Romford's brand of populist conservatism, embodied by Andrew Rosindell has a way to go, enough to last him his time in the Commons. But his successor might not find it so easy.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Enq1qN6WMAY9Z_i?format=jpg&name=large
--AS
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1331594338967695362
These are rather valuable, when you sell them.
So, when he finished one, he sold it. To make room for the next one.
This paid for (among other things) a top end cruise, which the wife was very, very happy with.
He was strictly instructed to "get back in the shed and build the next one", when they got back... which was a change in attitude to his previous train building efforts.
It is pathetic virtue signalling nonsense to have sweeping economic damage in the UK but to uniquely of all expenditure protect overseas aid when the rest of the world doesn't do the same.
People talk about leading the world but its not true, the rest of the world isn't following our lead, even after the cut the rest of the G7 pays less than we do. We should say that we will restore the 0.7% within 12 months of Germany and the USA doing the same.
I think though that race and class effects on voting are often exaggerated. Just as Remain got 30% of the vote in Boston, there are massive variations in individual voters behaviour, even when there are significant differences between means in voting between groups. On top of our overlapping identities we also have considerable idiosyncrasies.
Remember a couple of weeks ago we had the flip occurrence, 35k cases in a day.
And that might well be be an acceptably originalist reading for the conservative justices.
William Barr’s Lame-Duck Execution Spree Is Unprecedented
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/11/william-barr-lame-duck-execution-spree-is-unprecedented.html
Last week, the Trump administration announced that it would continue to carry out executions in the days and weeks leading up to the inauguration of President-elect Joe Biden, with the last one now scheduled just five days before Biden takes office on Jan. 20, 2021. This bloodthirsty decision is another and particularly grotesque way in which President Donald Trump and his Justice Department are defying the norms and conventions for modern presidential transitions.
The Death Penalty Information Center reports that the last time an outgoing administration did anything remotely similar was more than a century ago, in 1889. At that time Grover Cleveland, the first Democrat to be elected president after the Civil War and the only president ever to have served as an executioner*...
* One for the next political pub quiz.
A classic example of this was Roy Hattersley and his belief that *providing police protection* to Salman Rushdie was inflammatory. Well, it was. Very inflammatory...
We have 2 choices -
- Have a set of universal values and defend them. This entails being rude to some people.
- Or accept multiple sets of values. If the later you will have to learn to like some things. That you won't like.
If the new political battleground is more social than economic, then the two parties seem to have made very different bets about what happens next.
Conservatives have bet that people will continue to move left-to-right as they get older. That it doesn't matter that their core vote is literally dying off, because they will be replaced by the middle-aged. That worked when the battleground was economic, it's not so obvious that it works for cultural matters.
Labour have bet that people's social attitudes are more fixed; that we broadly carry the ideas about culture that we get in our youth as we get older.
Whose right? There's only one way to find out.
Another thing I seem to get with netflix a lot is that their loud bits are v loud and their quiet bits are too quiet. Doesnt seem to happen on other channels. Do modern TVs have such a thing as a sound contrast adjustment to bring the extremes in a bit?
https://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/health/coronavirus-cases-infections-deaths-wales-19343957
If you live in Wales, better make sure you have got your oven gloves for Christmas dinner, because if the rise in cases continues they will be back to banning their sale again soon.
Its like a pro-wrestling match. Staged for the punters.
I like Susan Boyle's cover of "Wild Horses".
I just wondered if there might be any possibility of a rebellion over the issue, though the numbers required are improbable.
https://davidallengreen.com/2020/11/why-the-phrase-to-enshrine-in-law-is-a-fraudulent-device/
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1331619821243555843?s=20
We found a 'clear voice setting' on our TV and that helped although it did make the sound less atmospheric. It is a Samsung. It is odd because our more modern Samsung doesn't have it.
As it is, the compromise is that the reduction is “temporary”, thus no-one ends up happy.
As for Rishi, what a damp squib! Describes the dimensions of the huge hole we are in, without so much as a hint as to how we are going to get out of it. The aid cut has been spent on defence, the public sector pay saving is reduced by exempting the lower paid (good politics, there), who’ll be getting 1% plus. He’s kicked the ball down the road until the spring budget, which is fair enough, except that his statement didn’t live up to expectations based on what was trailed (or leaked).
In time, the Tories may come to regret not announcing the bad financial news at the same time as the crisis, when people might have been more receptive.
Meanwhile the rabbit of the levelling up fund - typical Whitehall insistence that local communities bid for and jump through hoops to get some extra funding, trying to maintain the treasury grip on every extra £.. Why can’t we trust our local government, which is what it is there for?
Labour might be in two minds on fighting this battle though... obviously maintaining aid is the right thing to do, but it's not exactly a vote winner. Will be an interesting measure of just how pragmatic Starmer is prepared to be.
During a tense town hall, staff cried and expressed dismay with the publishing giant's decision to publish 'Beyond Order: 12 More Rules for Life.'
“He is an icon of hate speech and transphobia and the fact that he’s an icon of white supremacy, regardless of the content of his book, I’m not proud to work for a company that publishes him,” a junior employee who is a member of the LGBTQ community and who attended the town hall told VICE World News.
https://www.vice.com/en/article/g5bv3x/penguin-random-house-staff-confront-publisher-about-new-jordan-peterson-book
Its a bit like saying we should have banned Hackett polo shirts, because the hooligans decided they liked them...now if they are good clothes or not, that's a different matter...
But I suspect he is not serious.
Not killing two birds with one stone.
I'm not a fan of Edward Leigh but he's got an incurable medical condition that causes that appearance.
Do you mock people with cerebral palsy as well for cheap gags?
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-times-view-on-foreign-aid-spending-dispute-over-aid-vnpj8dfgt
I think a far better way of doing aid is to make it a guideline target over a longer time period (say, 5-10 years) broaden its definition and do strategic aid reviews every 5 years in precisely the same way we do for defence and security.
https://www.bbc.com/sport/football/55076322
Good riddance.
Yes, I quite like that. We both sign off on it?
If you have groups participating in a psych study, and tell them they can either receive £10 or £5, but if they go for £10 then other groups receive that too, an awful lot of them prefer the fiver.
International Rescure receives £50 million a year from UK taxpayers, supposedly to 'alleviate global poverty and distress'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8900805/Labour-Foreign-Secretary-David-rakes-1-million-year-mega-salary.html
What exactly do you think Putin is planning? Russia is run by gangsters, not ideologues who want to attack the UK.
The belief that nice progressive liberalism is a life style choice plucked from a shelf rather than a process involving hard yards and a continuing examination of one's own primitive sentiment is depressingly common. As you imply some of those holding that view seem also to believe that considerable leeway should be given to all sorts of deplorable ideas just because, and even that many of the folk holding these ideas are very fine people.
Let's hear it for muscular progressive liberalism!
This was leaked several days early for a reason. And it's because No.10 knew that it would be heavily criticised by rather privileged and well-off cross-party establishment figures, largely based in London and the southeast. Some of them have even gone so far as to profess their love for spending money on the world's poor whilst at the same time snobbily dismissing spending money on the Red Wall as pork barrel politics.
They've played straight into the Government's hands.
Sometimes, politicians say things that aren't true. Even politicians you approve of.
I know. Shocking, isn't it?
This is much more about populist politics than the rounding-error reduction in borrowing.
Not that a lot of people will notice that piece of sleight of hand.
Very good - especially the "right old pain in the pipe" bit.
I am interested as to how you pick and chose your undeserving wealthy recipients of public money. Your silence over Dido Harding and Kate Bingham was deafening!
(more seriously, doesn't 0.2% of GDP seem like a rather paltry sum of money for the government’s alleged chief policy priority?)
Could the Overseas Aid Budget be better spent? Undoubtedly - some of the countries we help don't need the help we are providing and there are other areas of the world which don't get enough.
There's a debate to be had about how and where the money is or should be spent but the principle of richer countries helping poorer isn't one with which I have an issue. 0.7% of GDP is a moveable feast as we know but in the grand scheme of things it isn't much and obsessing on one person's remuneration and living arrangements is just petty and small-minded.
There is certainly relative poverty in this country - look at Cornwall for example - but there isn't absolute poverty and the alleviation of that is, I believe, a reasonable and civilised ambition.
I honestly think it's a poor way of doing it, and undermines public credibility and support for it.
NEW THREAD
Counter terrorism is expensive, but not having as many bombs to drop would likely prevent as much terrorism as an extra few billion on super weapons, or a new robot army.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/dido-harding-taxpayer-nhs-job_uk_5f4923ffc5b697186e356515?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAEWq0P5EFqmmxl_Gj31IuhujyICil0OTvKFd0Pc57jHBTYEjMtYEvIyVnxRp7mcVxbTRQN3VCHdcyUw_3xJN7O3lDQi7WnL6xnTKDEaWRruzcBiKDqamhq1LWf_Kcj94JA6pwQv1mDuZG2oXLGYC3LUTuRX_2q7gp-ZL-OryRqQl
HYUFD you are in danger of becoming a boring party hack rather than someone who contributes anything insightful to the discussion. This kind of post is in my opinion unworthy of PB.
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1330571816272793610?s=20
If IRC spent more of their own money on projects rather than Mr Miliband's salary they would not have to rely on UK taxpayers to fill the gap and his salary easily puts him in the top 1% of even US earners