I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Funded by the uni, I should think, on an assessment of what's in their best interests.
Course filling is inexact. You have an absolute capacity and try and judge your admissions to get close to that. But some miss the grades, some do better than expected and take a different offer, some just change their minds.
So say you have a course at Leeds with absolute capactity limit 100 (lecturers, facilities). Normally you get about 80 and that's viable for the course, let's say that's break-even. This year you have 120. Getting staff in/increasing facilities is expensive and this may be a short term thing.
You're (say 3 year course) 20 people x £9k fees per year x 3 years up on your break even point for the course, so up £540k with minimal additional costs - mostly some extra marking, maybe a few more postgrads helping out on the courses (they're not necessarily paid for this, neither will your lecturers necessarily be paid more for the extra marking, probably not in fact).
You can easily afford to pay 20 people a one off £10k plus first year accommodation costs (real cost to uni - what, £5k maybe?) so that's 20*£15k = £300k.
Ending up ~£240k ahead is preferable to enlarging the course in the long term, unless you think there will be long term demand.
Japan reports 18,822 new coronavirus cases, the biggest one-day increase on record - NHK
They're getting serious about the state of emergency now, went I went out to eat earlier they weren't serving alcohol even before 8pm.
However I'd be a bit cautious about that number, we had an extended holiday weekend which affects testing, so we got a few days of low numbers followed by big numbers.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Funded by the uni, I should think, on an assessment of what's in their best interests.
Course filling is inexact. You have an absolute capacity and try and judge your admissions to get close to that. But some miss the grades, some do better than expected and take a different offer, some just change their minds.
So say you have a course at Leeds with absolute capactity limit 100 (lecturers, facilities). Normally you get about 80 and that's viable for the course, let's say tat's break-even. This year you have 120. Getting staff in/increasing facilities is expensive and this may be a short term thing.
You're (say 3 year course) 20 people x £9k fees per year x 3 years up on your break even point for the course, so up £540k with minimal additional costs - mostly some extra marking, maybe a few more postgrads helping out on the courses (they're not necessarily paid for this).
You can easily afford to pay 20 people a one off £10k plus first year accommodation costs (real cost to uni - what, £5k maybe?) so that's 20*£15k = £300k.
Ending up ~£240k ahead is preferable to enlarging the course in the long term, unless you think there will be long term demand.
Thank you for taking the time to explain- much appreciated
In run up to COP26, questions have been asked about new oil field plans in Scotland. @NicolaSturgeon has written to @BorisJohnson saying licences should be “reassessed”
Nicola Sturgeon, of course, wants "London" to be responsible for "destroying Scottish jobs" while the SNP can take the credit for "saving the environment".
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Yes, that's intriguing. There are two more variables in the mix, under-40 age and higher education, both of which have bewcome very strongly correlated with voting Labour, and which were also very strongly linked to voting Remain. Which is the chicken and which the egg?
Is there a rose-tinted spectacles factor here, with people being asked how they voted 11 years ago? Or are these pollsters examining historical records for the same individuals?
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Goodness only knows, but it does highlight one of the problems that's going to feed through the system in the next few years.
In most years, most universities make slightly-to-quite a lot more conditional offers than they have places available. The people in admissions offices have a fairly shrewd idea of how many people won't get the grades or will go elsewhere. So when I applied to do NatSci at Cambridge, my college made about 1.4 offers at AAA per place. When I was involved in the other side of admissions a couple of decades later, that ratio was down to about 1.05 offers at AAA per place; this was before A* had been invented.
It looks like Leeds Law and Business (typical offer AAA) use the A level grades to do a lot of their filtering, and that won't work this year. If they have more successful applicants than they have capacity to teach, what else can they do? It's a bit like when airlines overbook flights and then have to bribe people to not take the flight.
If I were on the uni side of the admissions process, I'd really really want to know what the government's plans for the 2022 exam season are- keep the 2021 grade profile, hack back to 2019, somewhere in-between, or something else? Bearing in mind that the students are halfway through their courses and that the first admissions deadline is mid-October, this is getting pretty urgent.
Good job we've got a real high-flyer as Education Secretary to sort that one.
In run up to COP26, questions have been asked about new oil field plans in Scotland. @NicolaSturgeon has written to @BorisJohnson saying licences should be “reassessed”
Nicola Sturgeon, of course, wants "London" to be responsible for "destroying Scottish jobs" while the SNP can take the credit for "saving the environment".
We are happy to acquiesce to Nicola Surgeon suggestion and remove the licenses for the fields where development has not begun.
In one sentence all the blame is passed back to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
In run up to COP26, questions have been asked about new oil field plans in Scotland. @NicolaSturgeon has written to @BorisJohnson saying licences should be “reassessed”
Nicola Sturgeon, of course, wants "London" to be responsible for "destroying Scottish jobs" while the SNP can take the credit for "saving the environment".
Like signing off on a Section 30, there’s only one party who signs drilling licences so Sturgeon doesn’t have to want anything. Of course that party could change these arrangements if it was so minded..
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Why do you think the Labour Party would do nothing and had the Commons back to the Tories "automatically"?
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As long as she enjoys her 5 years and is happy but I hope she will achieve a middle course view on politics like her grandfather
In run up to COP26, questions have been asked about new oil field plans in Scotland. @NicolaSturgeon has written to @BorisJohnson saying licences should be “reassessed”
Nicola Sturgeon, of course, wants "London" to be responsible for "destroying Scottish jobs" while the SNP can take the credit for "saving the environment".
We are happy to acquiesce to Nicola Surgeon suggestion and remove the licenses for the fields where development has not begun.
In one sentence all the blame is passed back to the Scottish Government.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Delaying it until there's a Labour PM is a terrible idea for the Tories.
That gives the initiative to Labour as to how they're going to respond to Sindy. Voting reform or other stuff could be pushed through under the cover of Scottish independence.
All that stuff’s small beer compared to the delicious prospect for evermore being able to accuse the Labour Party of allowing the union to split in their watch. Plus there’s the equally enticing prospect of Tory hegemony in England.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As long as she enjoys her 5 years and is happy but I hope she will achieve a middle course view on politics like her grandfather
Centrist (grand)dad
I second (or third or fourth) the thumbs up for Leeds. Worked with a lot of people from there and attended some of their seminar series etc. Good uni and a nice city with pretty easy access to the greenery around, too.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As a graduate of that august institution myself, I must of course agree with every word!
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As long as she enjoys her 5 years and is happy but I hope she will achieve a middle course view on politics like her grandfather
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As long as she enjoys her 5 years and is happy but I hope she will achieve a middle course view on politics like her grandfather
Centrist (grand)dad
I second (or third or fourth) the thumbs up for Leeds. Worked with a lot of people from there and attended some of their seminar series etc. Good uni and a nice city with pretty easy access to the greenery around, too.
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
How do you think Starmer will play this one?
I see a possible conflict between 2 factors:
1. Labour need to look sensible with money to win apolitical floating voters.
2. Labour need to make inroads with pensioners.
That's a really tricky one. I don't think Starmer would benefit from supporting an 8% rise - wouldn't look good for those getting no pay rise, and the argument I put forward is too complicated for him to explain. So I suspect he will support a suspension as long as 1) the return of the triple lock is guaranteed - it is only a suspension, and 2) this year's rise is decent enough - say 4% - to keep faith with the principle that the gap between the basic state pension and the average (or even minimum) wage should continue to narrow.
Yes, but in his place I'd focus on the "Can't trust anything they say" line - they make a promise until it's inconvenient. Make the restoration of the triple lock legally binding, not merely another promise. Sunak won't want to do that - no Chancellor likes to tie his hands - but the argument that merely saying you'll do it doesn't convince when you've just broken the last promise.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As a graduate of that august institution myself, I must of course agree with every word!
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
Bullshit.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Elect a Blair style leader, I voted twice for him
I know you did. But I'm not after your vote. I sense that's a bridge too far these days. No, I'm just hoping to see the back of this epithet "unelectable". Because that's much stronger than just saying you won't vote for somebody. It's saying that iyo their election would be a complete and utter disaster for the country. So (for a solid Conservative) I can see how that would apply to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But to describe Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the same way? - this seems rather unreasonable to me.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Thank you - she is very excited not least as her second year is in Japan and fourth in Italy, a country she adores
A year in Japan! Super daunting for one so young. Rife with challenges, but what a fortunate opportunity!
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
All the best people went to Leeds University, the greatest educational institution in the greatest city. But beware - it has a habit of turning out inveterate lefties like me. You should advise your granddaughter to watch out for the reds under the beds.
As long as she enjoys her 5 years and is happy but I hope she will achieve a middle course view on politics like her grandfather
I'm sure it wont be as lefty as in my day when NOLS seemed to run every aspect of the student union.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
Bullshit.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
So tactical considerations may come into play.
The LDs will go with the party which wins most seats and/or votes normally.
In the 2 post war elections they had the balance of power, in Feb 1974 Thorpe got very close to a deal with Heath and in 2010 Clegg actually supported Cameron's Tories in power for 5 years.
All that PR would mean is we have more Tory-LD and more Labour-LD governments and virtually no Tory majority or Labour majority governments. The right of the Tories would split off and also likely link up with Farage and win some seats and the Corbynite left of Labour would leave the party and start their own party and win a few seats too, as would the Greens.
Corbyn for example, would not have come anywhere near as close to a majority as he did in 2017 under FPTP under PR.
It would also as you say mean Labour lose full control of fiefdoms like Newham and Manchester and also mean never again would Labour win as many MPs as it did in landslide years like 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001
Missed their support act due to having another drink in halls instead. Some band called 'The Killers'. Still, don't think they ever amounted to anything
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Elect a Blair style leader, I voted twice for him
I know you did. But I'm not after your vote. I sense that's a bridge too far these days. No, I'm just hoping to see the back of this epithet "unelectable". Because that's much stronger than just saying you won't vote for somebody. It's saying that iyo their election would be a complete and utter disaster for the country. So (for a solid Conservative) I can see how that would apply to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But to describe Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the same way? - this seems rather unreasonable to me.
If hypothetical Tory X has sold out their principles to back BJ, it’s probably psychologically necessary to portray any alternative as a complete and utter disaster.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Thank you - she is very excited not least as her second year is in Japan and fourth in Italy, a country she adores
A year in Japan! Super daunting for one so young. Rife with challenges, but what a fortunate opportunity!
It is and she has a real talent for languages and writing
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
Most employers also allow employees to contribute even more than 8%, you can sacrifice earnings now for a bumper pension later
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Its been tough, but why would you expect fees to be returned? I've worked harder in the last year to ensure our students got the education they paid for, and this was reflected in the National Student Survey, where my department led the University and was highly ranked nationally. Many students have preferred to have lectures in prerecorded format to allow them to watch at a time to suit them.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
That certainly covers the absence of testicular fortitude component. I think there’s also an element of English nationalism that would instinctively see a loss of a third of land mass and two thirds of territorial waters as a failure. ‘We’re now only a bit of a sceptred isle? The shame!’
Wullie S. was lying back and thinkign of EnglandandWales when he wrote the original sceptred isle bit.
(Richard II was written 1595–96 and published in a quarto edition in 1597.)
Mind, he did also write about the shitty-cornered ('nookshotten') Isle of Albion. But it was the French speaking (IIRC, in HenryV).
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Broken, sleazy SNP barely troubling the scorer (unless it turns out their 4% are all concentrated in one particular corner of the kingdom, say East Anglia). Nice presentation with the colours btw.
David Cameron is a paid advisor to US biotech firm Illumina. Illumina wanted an NHS contract. Cameron lobbied Matt Hancock for a contract on Illumina's behalf. Illumina were awarded a £123m NHS contract without tender
Not great, but there's far dodgier stuff than that. Illumina are by quite some distance the world's leading sequencing company, so in the context of all the other no bid contracts, this one seems on the face of it fairly reasonable.
The Greensil thing seems an utterly toxic swamp, though.
The wierd thing is that DC really doesn’t need the money, but he’s still debasing himself for these companies. He must know it looks bad on him.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Might be worth considering whether you need to capitalise the Nat bit. The PBtories do confuse Scottish nationalism/independistism with SNP membership. Vide HYUFD, Candy etc.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Elect a Blair style leader, I voted twice for him
I know you did. But I'm not after your vote. I sense that's a bridge too far these days. No, I'm just hoping to see the back of this epithet "unelectable". Because that's much stronger than just saying you won't vote for somebody. It's saying that iyo their election would be a complete and utter disaster for the country. So (for a solid Conservative) I can see how that would apply to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But to describe Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the same way? - this seems rather unreasonable to me.
Starmer has not done enough to correct the damage Corbyn caused to the brand which is still an issue
Furthermore his initiative to try to outdo the Greens may well see problems, not least the way he wants to trash 1,000 Scottish plus jobs
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Elect a Blair style leader, I voted twice for him
I know you did. But I'm not after your vote. I sense that's a bridge too far these days. No, I'm just hoping to see the back of this epithet "unelectable". Because that's much stronger than just saying you won't vote for somebody. It's saying that iyo their election would be a complete and utter disaster for the country. So (for a solid Conservative) I can see how that would apply to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But to describe Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the same way? - this seems rather unreasonable to me.
If hypothetical Tory X has sold out their principles to back BJ, it’s probably psychologically necessary to portray any alternative as a complete and utter disaster.
I confess I do remember when G was going to send a letter in. Exciting times they were.
I have never understood Private Pensions, the pot that you have saved seems to bear no resemblance to the amount you get paid a month.
As an example a few years ago a friend of mine was 67 and still working. He asked me for help in working out his pensions as he had 3 private pensions and had not yet claimed his state pension. He was a single guy having recently divorced and living in rented accommodation.
We worked out that he had a pension pot of around £600k. The monthly amount he would receive meant he would need to live to 107 to get the £600k. Therefore he took the money all at once. He bought himself a house, has a nice lump sum left over, plus his state pension, plus he still works a bit. It made no financial sense to have the monthly amount.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that. [snip]
Very difficult politically. Since time immemorial, people have been told that they were 'making contributions' to their state pensions in the NI they paid, and pension entitlement is linked to that. It was smoke-and-mirrors, of course - there was no fund they were paying into - but that is what they were told, repeatedly, in all government communications on the subject, under all post-war governments .
And what about SERPS? Some of that state pension was specifically linked to earnings, and then later on workers could opt out of SERPS and pay a reduced NI amount provided they put the equivalent amount into a private pension. In your scheme, those that did that don't get penalised, those that didn't (based on promises made to them at the time) do.
Actually, not so much 'very difficult politically' as 'a non-starter politically'.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Yes the whole student thing will have been, sadly, watered down somewhat. I do feel really sorry for young people throughout this whole thing, uni students or not. If I'd missed being able to go out and get plastered and/or laid for an 18 month period anywhere between being 17 and 25-ish, life would have been much more miserable. Particularly the 18-21 years.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
The young are just greedy whiney no marks. Get out and work like the pensioners did and earn your own money. A days work would be too much for most of the pampered jessies. Back in the day when men were men , we did not plot how to rob our granny , we got out there and worked our socks off, no handed it on a plate in those days.
Enjoy it while it last Malc, you won't get anything near as generous in indyScotland...
Don’t you start the too wee, too poor, too stupid nonsense Foxy. You’re a better man than that.
The truth hurts
You’re also a better man than than. You’re is the wrong party. They’re a bunch of rotters.
As you know I support the union and have extensive family ties in Scotland, not least my wife whose late father was a very successful fishing skipper.
He was the quite most wonderful man anyone could want as a father in law, wise, generous and kind, who voted Labour, opposed the EU , but most of all rejected nationalism as divisive and not in Scotland 's interest
I have many reasons for being a conservative, not least as they will defend the union, but the opposition at present are entirely unelectable in my view
Unelectable under radical left wing management. Unelectable under centrist consensual management.
I'm not sure what Labour have to do to become legitimate in your eyes, G.
Elect a Blair style leader, I voted twice for him
I know you did. But I'm not after your vote. I sense that's a bridge too far these days. No, I'm just hoping to see the back of this epithet "unelectable". Because that's much stronger than just saying you won't vote for somebody. It's saying that iyo their election would be a complete and utter disaster for the country. So (for a solid Conservative) I can see how that would apply to Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell. But to describe Labour under Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves in the same way? - this seems rather unreasonable to me.
If hypothetical Tory X has sold out their principles to back BJ, it’s probably psychologically necessary to portray any alternative as a complete and utter disaster.
I confess I do remember when G was going to send a letter in. Exciting times they were.
Those road not taken moments which might have changed history!
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
Most employers also allow employees to contribute even more than 8%, you can sacrifice earnings now for a bumper pension later
Plus remember private pensions are on top of the state pension you already get
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
Bullshit.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
So tactical considerations may come into play.
The LDs will go with the party which wins most seats and/or votes normally.
In the 2 post war elections they had the balance of power, in Feb 1974 Thorpe got very close to a deal with Heath and in 2010 Clegg actually supported Cameron's Tories in power for 5 years.
All that PR would mean is we have more Tory-LD and more Labour-LD governments and virtually no Tory majority or Labour majority governments. The right of the Tories would split off and also likely link up with Farage and win some seats and the Corbynite left of Labour would leave the party and start their own party and win a few seats too, as would the Greens.
Corbyn for example, would not have come anywhere near as close to a majority as he did in 2017 under FPTP under PR.
It would also as you say mean Labour lose full control of fiefdoms like Newham and Manchester and also mean never again would Labour win as many MPs as it did in landslide years like 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001
Much of your post is rubbish, but let me just demonstrate how wrong you are mathematically on this one point.
In 2017 Corbyn won 263 seats under FPTP with 40% of the vote.
Under pure PR he would have won 260 seats. The Liberal Democrats would have had around 50. Plaid and the Greens 13.
With Sinn Fein out, that’s enough for a majority.
And the Tories would have had 273 seats and been out of office.
Now that presupposes people would have voted the same way, which is almost certainly a false assumption. But since the people who voted Labour probably did so on the assumption their favoured party couldn’t win the seat, that would not be to the benefit of the Tories.
Those are facts. Can’t help it if you don’t like them. Just stop arguing against them.
Missed their support act due to having another drink in halls instead. Some band called 'The Killers'. Still, don't think they ever amounted to anything
BSP have never had so much free publicity. Excellent.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that. [snip]
Very difficult politically. Since time immemorial, people have been told that they were 'making contributions' to their state pensions in the NI they paid, and pension entitlement is linked to that. It was smoke-and-mirrors, of course - there was no fund they were paying into - but that is what they were told, repeatedly, in all government communications on the subject, under all post-war governments .
And what about SERPS? Some of that state pension was specifically linked to earnings, and then later on workers could opt out of SERPS and pay a reduced NI amount provided they put the equivalent amount into a private pension. In your scheme, those that did that don't get penalised, those that didn't (based on promises made to them at the time) do.
Actually, not so much 'very difficult politically' as 'a non-starter politically'.
Anecdata on SERPS Opt Out.
I'd be interested to hear of how many opted out of SERPS who were not in a corporate pension scheme.
I could do so and keep my corporate scheme pension, as the particular scheme I was in was "contracted in". This was 1991-ish. At the time the best assessed pension manager was ... Equitable Life.
I never found anyone who could realistically move my smallish pot from Equitable when they went out of control, so it has been stuck with them until they were recently bought out.
I had a small amount of Compo from EL, and the pension pot paid into from 1991-1997 with my SERPS contributions alongside my corporate pension is now worth about 50k.
Which on an index linked pension annuity is worth something like £1500 a year, I think. So a small bonus top up on the corporate pension which would cover the cost of a nice holiday. But it has another decade or more to run.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
All true but that is off NMW, off average earnings it is substantially better. And the scheme has been running for a few years so the numbers broadly apply to todays 30 year olds. It is probably those in their forties and early fifties who have the biggest pension gaps. We are also the ones expected to shoulder any incoming tax increases.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Its been tough, but why would you expect fees to be returned? I've worked harder in the last year to ensure our students got the education they paid for, and this was reflected in the National Student Survey, where my department led the University and was highly ranked nationally. Many students have preferred to have lectures in prerecorded format to allow them to watch at a time to suit them.
I wouldn't really expect it. From the supplier viewpoint, as you say, I bet it's been harder to deliver a quality product and so the fees per that line of argument should if anything be higher. But if I were a student I think I might nevertheless feel a bit hard done by. It depends on the person of course, and no doubt for some it has worked really well, maybe even better than if no pandemic, but I'd have thought they were in a minority.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
One of the many depressing things about Epstein is that his whole career was a tissue of lies and fantasies and yet somehow he persuaded some very bright people to overlook that. His whole fortune that allowed him to get away with so much for so long was built on his fraudulently claiming qualifications and experience he didn’t have for a first job yet even when he was found out, he wasn’t fired because he was so eloquent in his defence.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
He was also an expert in law, and knew very well what was the age of consent in each jurisdiction in which he operated.
Yes, he’d go out of his way to find places where the age of consent was 14 or 15, rather than the 17 or 18 that’s usual in the USA. It doesn’t mean that people did anything illegal, and most of the comments now are more about shaming than exposing actual illegality.
I'd be interested to hear of how many opted out of SERPS who were not in corporate pension scheme.
I could do so and keep my corporate scheme pension, as the particular scheme I was in was "contracted in". This was 1991-ish. At the time the best assessed pension manager was ... Equitable Life.
I never found anyone who could realistically move my smallish pot from Equitable when they went out of control, so it has been stuck with them until they were recently bought out.
I had a small amount of Compo from EL, and the pension pot paid into from 1991-1997 with my SERPS contributions alongside my corporate pension is now worth about 50k.
Which on an index linked pension annuity is worth something like £1500 a year, I think. So a small bonus top up on the corporate pension which would cover the cost of a nice holiday. But it has another decade or more to run.
Tell me about it. I too opted out and put the dosh into Equitable Life funds. That didn't turn out to be one of the smartest financial moves I've ever made! In the end I took the cash buyout which they eventually offered, which wasn't great but wasn't a total disaster. I put the money into my SIPP.
Keep the triple lock. The UK state pension is already the worst in the developed world.
The UK state pension comes bottom in a league table of net replacement rates for average earnings at just 28 per cent, according to an influential global pensions report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development.
This compares with a 59 per cent average across the 36 members of the international organisation of rich democratic countries analysed in its latest report
It won't when it gets to privateer pensioners of my age, when the final salary pensions of our parents era have all but evaporated.
A very, very high percentage of the over 40s have wholly inadequate pension provision. With personal hindsight my advice would be forego the monthly lease payments on the Discovery Sport ( it's killing the planet anyway ) exchange that for a £1000 Fiesta and put the savings into the pension pot.
I am in the "luxurious" position of being able to work until I drop. Without that I would be b*ll*xed, I suspect many others will be too!
Actually the UK has amongst the highest enrolled in workplace pensions in Europe now, which will make it easier for future generations.
France however has far fewer with private pensions and very costly state pensions Macron wants to cut
But a huge number of those workplace pensions are going to be worthless. The size of the pot you need to retire on is out of the reach of all these new schemes the Govt has encouraged. people are going to be very disappointed.
Given most pensioners own their own property and have no mortgage or rent to pay they don't need vast pensions, just enough to live on.
We will also be far better placed than most of Europe to cope as we have far higher workplace pension enrolment than they do and as Macron starts to cut the vast state pension bill in France
LOL. Have you any idea what these new workplace pensions will give you to live on?
I wasn't making any comparison with France. I was just pointing out that most of these new pensions will be next to worthless, and I don't mean a little less than they are currently getting so ok because they don't have a mortgage to pay, but actually next to worthless. Many will only be paying out the equivalent of the low tens of pounds a week.
Not sure that is true for someone starting out now, even on minimum wage throughout a career. 40-50 years of 8% of qualifying earnings (£1k ish?) invested in the market should give 2.5-4k per year annuity at 68.
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
Most employers also allow employees to contribute even more than 8%, you can sacrifice earnings now for a bumper pension later
Plus remember private pensions are on top of the state pension you already get
You're doing it again. I wasn't arguing with you on the rest of the post, just this one item, but in response to the points you made in the last two posts:
a) Of course you can add more to your pension. Many of us have healthy pension pots, but the point I was making was for the vast numbers who are on low salaries who don't. You made an assumption, that I challenged as not being accurate for many people.
b) Yes they are on top of the state pension, but again not a point I was arguing against. I simply pointed out you were assuming these pots were worth more than they are likely to be. But on that point we have had this argument before. You want the state pension to be linked to inflation and not earnings and therefore will diminish in real terms year after year. I gave you the stats previously for a policemen, nurse and someone else I can't remember, from a hundred years ago, linking their salaries to inflation to give a current day worth. It was worth a pittance in today's terms.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
Bullshit.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
So tactical considerations may come into play.
The LDs will go with the party which wins most seats and/or votes normally.
In the 2 post war elections they had the balance of power, in Feb 1974 Thorpe got very close to a deal with Heath and in 2010 Clegg actually supported Cameron's Tories in power for 5 years.
All that PR would mean is we have more Tory-LD and more Labour-LD governments and virtually no Tory majority or Labour majority governments. The right of the Tories would split off and also likely link up with Farage and win some seats and the Corbynite left of Labour would leave the party and start their own party and win a few seats too, as would the Greens.
Corbyn for example, would not have come anywhere near as close to a majority as he did in 2017 under FPTP under PR.
It would also as you say mean Labour lose full control of fiefdoms like Newham and Manchester and also mean never again would Labour win as many MPs as it did in landslide years like 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001
Much of your post is rubbish, but let me just demonstrate how wrong you are mathematically on this one point.
In 2017 Corbyn won 263 seats under FPTP with 40% of the vote.
Under pure PR he would have won 260 seats. The Liberal Democrats would have had around 50. Plaid and the Greens 13.
With Sinn Fein out, that’s enough for a majority.
And the Tories would have had 273 seats and been out of office.
Now that presupposes people would have voted the same way, which is almost certainly a false assumption. But since the people who voted Labour probably did so on the assumption their favoured party couldn’t win the seat, that would not be to the benefit of the Tories.
Those are facts. Can’t help it if you don’t like them. Just stop arguing against them.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
Time to defend HYUFD on this one, his post was clearly not presupposing people would vote the same way under FPTP so he cannot be mathematically wrong based on FPTP results.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Its been tough, but why would you expect fees to be returned? I've worked harder in the last year to ensure our students got the education they paid for, and this was reflected in the National Student Survey, where my department led the University and was highly ranked nationally. Many students have preferred to have lectures in prerecorded format to allow them to watch at a time to suit them.
I wouldn't really expect it. From the supplier viewpoint, as you say, I bet it's been harder to deliver a quality product and so the fees per that line of argument should if anything be higher. But if I were a student I think I might nevertheless feel a bit hard done by. It depends on the person of course, and no doubt for some it has worked really well, maybe even better than if no pandemic, but I'd have thought they were in a minority.
Cheers. I think any rents that were not returned would be criminal, but the course tuition fees should not.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
Only an imbecile could think that.
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Why do you think all English Labour MPs would vote for PR that would lose some of them their seats?
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
Because under a proportional representation system they have a much better chance of being in government. HTH.
Irrelevant if they have lost their MPs salary and lost their seat.
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
Bullshit.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
So tactical considerations may come into play.
The LDs will go with the party which wins most seats and/or votes normally.
In the 2 post war elections they had the balance of power, in Feb 1974 Thorpe got very close to a deal with Heath and in 2010 Clegg actually supported Cameron's Tories in power for 5 years.
All that PR would mean is we have more Tory-LD and more Labour-LD governments and virtually no Tory majority or Labour majority governments. The right of the Tories would split off and also likely link up with Farage and win some seats and the Corbynite left of Labour would leave the party and start their own party and win a few seats too, as would the Greens.
Corbyn for example, would not have come anywhere near as close to a majority as he did in 2017 under FPTP under PR.
It would also as you say mean Labour lose full control of fiefdoms like Newham and Manchester and also mean never again would Labour win as many MPs as it did in landslide years like 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001
Much of your post is rubbish, but let me just demonstrate how wrong you are mathematically on this one point.
In 2017 Corbyn won 263 seats under FPTP with 40% of the vote.
Under pure PR he would have won 260 seats. The Liberal Democrats would have had around 50. Plaid and the Greens 13.
With Sinn Fein out, that’s enough for a majority.
And the Tories would have had 273 seats and been out of office.
Now that presupposes people would have voted the same way, which is almost certainly a false assumption. But since the people who voted Labour probably did so on the assumption their favoured party couldn’t win the seat, that would not be to the benefit of the Tories.
Those are facts. Can’t help it if you don’t like them. Just stop arguing against them.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
Wrong.
Corbyn was just 60 odd seats from a majority under FPTP.
Under PR he would have needed 50%+ of the vote for a majority.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
That's meaningless gibberish.
There's no mainstream Eng Nat political activism, it is currently a fringe idea. I would like the Tories to embrace it and I advocate it, but its currently on the fringes and so isn't associated with any party.
The issue with antisemitism is not with fringe activisim that doesn't engage with any party, it isn't that there were fringe leftwingers some of whom were racist - there is sadly a racist minority in all philosophies - it was when the Labour Party became institutionally infested with and led by antisemites.
Your trying to conflate a philosophy with a party being led by an outright antisemite is just pure distractionism. If a mainstream party embraces Eng Nat activism then we would be able to judge that party as and when it does by how it acts.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Might be worth considering whether you need to capitalise the Nat bit. The PBtories do confuse Scottish nationalism/independistism with SNP membership. Vide HYUFD, Candy etc.
It's an interesting one. There's no logical reason why ardent English nationalist sentiment should be correlated to the fruitier end of right wing politics but such is undeniably the case. I have yet to come across a person attracted to the first who is not also a Hard Leaver and (at the very least) clearly on the right of the political spectrum.
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
One of the many depressing things about Epstein is that his whole career was a tissue of lies and fantasies and yet somehow he persuaded some very bright people to overlook that. His whole fortune that allowed him to get away with so much for so long was built on his fraudulently claiming qualifications and experience he didn’t have for a first job yet even when he was found out, he wasn’t fired because he was so eloquent in his defence.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
I'm not a bit surprised. Lots of fraudsters, certainly the ones I've met, exhibit similar characteristics.
From what I've read of how he made his "fortune", it sounds like money-laundering.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Yes the whole student thing will have been, sadly, watered down somewhat. I do feel really sorry for young people throughout this whole thing, uni students or not. If I'd missed being able to go out and get plastered and/or laid for an 18 month period anywhere between being 17 and 25-ish, life would have been much more miserable. Particularly the 18-21 years.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
Face-to-face teaching will be better too!
I'm ashamed to say that my uni time was pretty much 0% doing a degree and 100% "exploring my new status as a young adult". I'd go for more of a 50/50, given my time again, but of course that's by definition a nonsense. Given my time again I'd do exactly the same.
I have never understood Private Pensions, the pot that you have saved seems to bear no resemblance to the amount you get paid a month.
As an example a few years ago a friend of mine was 67 and still working. He asked me for help in working out his pensions as he had 3 private pensions and had not yet claimed his state pension. He was a single guy having recently divorced and living in rented accommodation.
We worked out that he had a pension pot of around £600k. The monthly amount he would receive meant he would need to live to 107 to get the £600k. Therefore he took the money all at once. He bought himself a house, has a nice lump sum left over, plus his state pension, plus he still works a bit. It made no financial sense to have the monthly amount.
Sounds like he was being ripped off, or not doing his sums right, since annuity rates around that age are still between 4-5% depending on the associated benefits chosen.
Prince Andrew: Refusal to talk to Epstein investigators ‘straining relations between UK and America’
… the lack of information-sharing had caused diplomatic strain, with US law enforcement and diplomats raising the matter with their British counterparts.
The lack of cooperation now spans three years of reported attempts by the US authorities to gather facts from the royal who, in a statement from 2019, said he would be willing to help US law-enforcement with investigations. However, in January last year, Manhattan US attorney Geoffrey Berman said the country’s authorities had received “zero cooperation” from the prince…
Of particular interest to the US authorities is how money transfers may be linked to the movement of young women and girls. The various interested bodies, including the FBI, believe these may offer insights into ongoing organised criminal operations.
The authorities’ interests are understood to include multiple trips by the royal to Epstein’s Caribbean island, Little St James, as well as Florida and New York. Last year, prosecutors in the US Virgin Islands, which includes Little St James, alleged Mr Epstein abused hundreds of young women and girls up until 2018.
Given the US refuse to hand over Anne Sacoolas tough.
Perhaps they could also look a bit more into Bill Clinton and Bill Gates' links to Epstein before lecturing us
This Windsor scandal is clearly touching a raw Tory nerve. Hardly news. I expect a veritable infestation of squirrels in the coming months and years. Poor old Harry and Meghan.
Shame on you HY. If the Tories had an ounce of decency they would be encouraging the coward prince to get on a trans-Atlantic plane and face the charges, as he promised to do in 2019.
1. The US criminal authorities have charged Ghislaine Maxwell. As part of that they may be seeking evidence from Andrew as a potential witness. There is no necessity for him to fly to the US to do this. He would be well advised not to in any case until the basis on which such discussions are had is clear & there is clear agreement on what use can & cannot be made of whatever he says. This is because there are various protections in law - both English & the US - and everyone is entitled to use them. There are dangers in volunteering evidence without doing so. There are also issues for the US authorities because evidence gathered in such a way may not be admissible in any subsequent trial
Believe me, I have advised a number of people in similar circumstances & any good lawyer would be very wary about telling a client to go to the US to speak to the criminal authorities there just because they ask.
The US authorities - whether criminal or regulatory - are very willing to grandstand in public to bully people into ignoring their rights. They will often try to ignore different legal requirements in overseas jurisdictions because (a) it is just plain inconvenient for them or (b) it stops them doing what they want.
2. The US criminal authorities have not charged Andrew with anything. Extradition is irrelevant.
3. He now faces a civil suit in the US - brought just before the limitation period expires. It is not entirely clear whether the allegation is that he had sex with a minor or had sex with someone over the age of consent without her consent (rape, in other words) or something else. There is an issue as to jurisdiction because the acts complained of, AFAIU, happened in the UK.
It really does not matter whether he is an HRH or not. He is entitled to the same legal protections as everyone else including the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. There is something unseemly in the way that people rush to assume that because he appears to be an entitled twit he must therefore be guilty of serious crimes. Some of the comments made about him on social media are seriously defamatory. Equally, he is subject to the law as everyone else.
There will be strategic & tactical decisions which his lawyers will have to consider. In addition, he - and his advisors - need to consider the impact of his behaviour on the rest of his family.
Much of what is written in the papers about this is ill-informed nonsense.
I have no idea who is telling the truth here. I do think Andrew was ill-advised to give that interview. But in any event, the matter is now in the hands of the lawyers and, from what I know, some of those advising him are very good indeed. I hope for his sake that he listens to good advice. He clearly hasn't in the past.
You'd have thought courtiers or someone might have warned him about Epstein. But there again Epstein managed to get into his orbit people far far cleverer than Andrew - Clinton, Gates etc. So what does that say about them?
One of the many depressing things about Epstein is that his whole career was a tissue of lies and fantasies and yet somehow he persuaded some very bright people to overlook that. His whole fortune that allowed him to get away with so much for so long was built on his fraudulently claiming qualifications and experience he didn’t have for a first job yet even when he was found out, he wasn’t fired because he was so eloquent in his defence.
His ability to deceive and manipulate was really quite extraordinary and that was one reason he got away with so much.
I'm not a bit surprised. Lots of fraudsters, certainly the ones I've met, exhibit similar characteristics.
From what I've read of how he made his "fortune", it sounds like money-laundering.
I think he made some genuine money at the start of the whole mathematical trading/valuation thing - but his maths skills weren't up to the increasing arms race of technical skill in that area. So he tried using his reputation as a maths/money wizz to move into other areas...
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
That's meaningless gibberish.
There's no mainstream Eng Nat political activism, it is currently a fringe idea. I would like the Tories to embrace it and I advocate it, but its currently on the fringes and so isn't associated with any party.
The issue with antisemitism is not with fringe activisim that doesn't engage with any party, it isn't that there were fringe leftwingers some of whom were racist - there is sadly a racist minority in all philosophies - it was when the Labour Party became institutionally infested with and led by antisemites.
Your trying to conflate a philosophy with a party being led by an outright antisemite is just pure distractionism. If a mainstream party embraces Eng Nat activism then we would be able to judge that party as and when it dohes by how it acts.
What do you think Francois, Bone, Cash, Chope, Philip Davies and their Brexity chums, and to an extent Johnson stand for if not English Nationalism?
I see that ridiculous SeanT article about America - ill-informed gibberish from a typical europhile lefty - is now the most read on the Spectator website. Thank God he has gone, or he'd be crowing on here in his usual obnoxious style.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Yes the whole student thing will have been, sadly, watered down somewhat. I do feel really sorry for young people throughout this whole thing, uni students or not. If I'd missed being able to go out and get plastered and/or laid for an 18 month period anywhere between being 17 and 25-ish, life would have been much more miserable. Particularly the 18-21 years.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
Face-to-face teaching will be better too!
I'm ashamed to say that my uni time was pretty much 0% doing a degree and 100% "exploring my new status as a young adult". I'd go for more of a 50/50, given my time again, but of course that's by definition a nonsense. Given my time again I'd do exactly the same.
Giving 18 year olds accommodation away from home (often first time away from home), a certain amount of money and leave them to choose what to do - work or play?
The remarkable thing is that so many actually study!
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
Have you considered the possibility that they might be an English nationalist party without balls and the courage of their convictions?
I think they’re perfectly happy for Sindy to happen (like they’d be happy to see the back of NI) and know there’s a very good chance within a decade or two, they are just more than happy to delay until there’s a Labour PM. They’ve got one eye on the history books.
Agreed. That is certainly the gist of HYUFD’s copy n pastes. They are wanting Scottish independence to happen under a Labour PM. Bit childish and cowardly really.
If Scottish independence did happen under a Labour PM reliant on Scottish MPs support that would automatically return to the Tories to power anyway once those Scottish MPs left the Commons
I expect Sunak to suspend the triple lock for a year, and for that decision not to be too controversial; and I'd support it.
But it's worth looking at the actual figures. An 8% increase would give somebody living on the full state pension an extra £62 per calendar month. Probably enough to cover the looming rise in energy prices and a little bit more. So not hugely beneficial or life-changing for an individual pensioner, but a huge cost to the nation's economy. Of course, a fair bit of the £62 would be clawed back from those pensioners who have taxable income. By contrast, a 3% rise in state pension would give a £23 monthly rise, less than £6 a week, a meagre amount.
It remains the case that our state pension is too low for those who have no other income, and too high for those rolling in it. Surely the radical answer is to improve the lot of the poorest pensioners while increasing the tax/NI take from those who can afford it.
Well isn't that the point, the triple lock benefits people like my dad who has just reached state pension age, his private pension and investment earnings are in the higher tax bracket. He can afford to pay a lot more tax but the government is dithering over giving him an extra £800 per year. It should be putting up taxes on people like him so that his income is taxed the same as mine or yours is.
Yes, I agree with you - which is by no means common. Maybe this is an issue where a genuine left/centre/right consensus could be achieved?
Yes one would hope, but this feels like the perfect opportunity for Starmer to oppose the government and try and win some old people votes.
Loads of people talk about how the UK state pension is pretty rubbish, however, no one talks about the huge non-state pension income which puts UK pensioners near the top of the table. It's beyond time that the state pension became a tapered benefit, there's simply no need or reason for anyone in the higher rate tax bracket to be getting it. My parents both see it as their holiday subsidy fund, nothing more than that.
If we did that we could maybe make it more generous for people who don't have the same level of private income and make a huge saving at the same time.
Agreed. At the moment we've got the two poles of opinion saying pensioners are either pampered, or in penury. Acknowledging that both things might be true is the first step towards constructive policy.
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
I see that ridiculous SeanT article about America - ill-informed gibberish from a typical europhile lefty - is now the most read on the Spectator website. Thank God he has gone, or he'd be crowing on here in his usual obnoxious style.
Yeah - he's probably rereading it endlessly himself, just to get those numbers up, eh.
AIUI, there are various types of pensioner. At one end, people with significant wealth and income, who don’t need a state pension, and will be paying at least 40% tax on their pension. At the other end, people who have lived most or all of their lives on benefits or low paid employment. They are used to living on the income level provided by the state pension, and other state benefits. In the middle, there are three main groups. The first is those that have had employment with a decent pension for their working lives - public sector or large companies with final salary pensions (at least until recently). The second is those that have made sensible levels of private pension provision, and have managed it well, probably with the help of a reputable IFA. The third is the group that, although earning a reasonable income, have not saved for their retirement, or for anything else. The workplace pension scheme was introduced to boost the retirement income of the modestly paid, but also to force the feckless to take some responsibility for their future. I hope it works.
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Yes the whole student thing will have been, sadly, watered down somewhat. I do feel really sorry for young people throughout this whole thing, uni students or not. If I'd missed being able to go out and get plastered and/or laid for an 18 month period anywhere between being 17 and 25-ish, life would have been much more miserable. Particularly the 18-21 years.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
Face-to-face teaching will be better too!
I'm ashamed to say that my uni time was pretty much 0% doing a degree and 100% "exploring my new status as a young adult". I'd go for more of a 50/50, given my time again, but of course that's by definition a nonsense. Given my time again I'd do exactly the same.
Giving 18 year olds accommodation away from home (often first time away from home), a certain amount of money and leave them to choose what to do - work or play?
The remarkable thing is that so many actually study!
Yes, I'm always impressed by the maturity of those who hold it together and both have a good time AND study.
I see that ridiculous SeanT article about America - ill-informed gibberish from a typical europhile lefty - is now the most read on the Spectator website. Thank God he has gone, or he'd be crowing on here in his usual obnoxious style.
It was a fascinating, erudite, insightful and entertaining piece (but don't tell him I said so) and rather sums up everything about America I'd come to know or suspect in recent years. But I wonder how it will be viewed amongst the Spectator readership - a lot of 51st Staters in there I'd have thought.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Might be worth considering whether you need to capitalise the Nat bit. The PBtories do confuse Scottish nationalism/independistism with SNP membership. Vide HYUFD, Candy etc.
It's an interesting one. There's no logical reason why ardent English nationalist sentiment should be correlated to the fruitier end of right wing politics but such is undeniably the case. I have yet to come across a person attracted to the first who is not also a Hard Leaver and (at the very least) clearly on the right of the political spectrum.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Might be worth considering whether you need to capitalise the Nat bit. The PBtories do confuse Scottish nationalism/independistism with SNP membership. Vide HYUFD, Candy etc.
It's an interesting one. There's no logical reason why ardent English nationalist sentiment should be correlated to the fruitier end of right wing politics but such is undeniably the case. I have yet to come across a person attracted to the first who is not also a Hard Leaver and (at the very least) clearly on the right of the political spectrum.
Billy Bragg?
I seem to recall quite a lot of centre-left supporters of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but I haven’t heard a peep from that organisation in about a decade.
I have never understood Private Pensions, the pot that you have saved seems to bear no resemblance to the amount you get paid a month.
As an example a few years ago a friend of mine was 67 and still working. He asked me for help in working out his pensions as he had 3 private pensions and had not yet claimed his state pension. He was a single guy having recently divorced and living in rented accommodation.
We worked out that he had a pension pot of around £600k. The monthly amount he would receive meant he would need to live to 107 to get the £600k. Therefore he took the money all at once. He bought himself a house, has a nice lump sum left over, plus his state pension, plus he still works a bit. It made no financial sense to have the monthly amount.
Why didn't he take drawdown? At £600K that would provide a lot of flexibility, while keeping it invested. comfortably.
He would have been hammered in tax taking it all at once. That is madness.
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
Scott'nPaste trying to mislead again? Who can forget his covid fake figures the other week? Not me.
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
Con 41 Lab 30
The first double digit Tory lead for a month
Dead cat bounce?
Starmer's not had a good summer. I don't particularly mind him, but I'm starting to think he might also be a bit rubbish.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
Might be worth considering whether you need to capitalise the Nat bit. The PBtories do confuse Scottish nationalism/independistism with SNP membership. Vide HYUFD, Candy etc.
It's an interesting one. There's no logical reason why ardent English nationalist sentiment should be correlated to the fruitier end of right wing politics but such is undeniably the case. I have yet to come across a person attracted to the first who is not also a Hard Leaver and (at the very least) clearly on the right of the political spectrum.
Billy Bragg?
I seem to recall quite a lot of centre-left supporters of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but I haven’t heard a peep from that organisation in about a decade.
There is certainly a 'Did those feet in ancient time ...?' strain in English politics, but it's not very prominent at the moment - maybe subsumed somewhere in Labour or the Greens?
Up 4 from last month, and the VI lead is 11 with Boris’s ratings improving and Sir Keir’s falling
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
Con 41 Lab 30
The first double digit Tory lead for a month
Dead cat bounce?
Probably not
I wonder what happened to get my post in reply to you last night deleted. That was odd wasn’t it?
As some of you may know, following my granddaughter's excellent A level results she starts at Leeds University in September on a 5 year course in Japanese and Italian language and culture.
However, this morning Leeds University are offering some students (my granddaughter is not affected) £10,000 and free accommodation to defer their courses
As a matter of interest how are these grants funded
Congrats to her. That's a long stint, 5 years, so I hope she enjoys it. My brother is a Prof at Leeds Uni, btw, but not on the languages side of things.
Yes, good for her. Leeds feels an amazing place to be at the minute. Cutting edge, but not too big to be impersonal.
Good timing on the Uni front too - should be more trad student life and less digital from next year onwards. It's all been a bit sad apparently during the pandemic. And no fees refund of course.
Yes the whole student thing will have been, sadly, watered down somewhat. I do feel really sorry for young people throughout this whole thing, uni students or not. If I'd missed being able to go out and get plastered and/or laid for an 18 month period anywhere between being 17 and 25-ish, life would have been much more miserable. Particularly the 18-21 years.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
Face-to-face teaching will be better too!
I'm ashamed to say that my uni time was pretty much 0% doing a degree and 100% "exploring my new status as a young adult". I'd go for more of a 50/50, given my time again, but of course that's by definition a nonsense. Given my time again I'd do exactly the same.
Completely justifying a slimmed down 2 year degree - why on earth they should be subsidised piss-ups at the expense of w/c taxpayers is utterly beyond me.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
That's meaningless gibberish.
There's no mainstream Eng Nat political activism, it is currently a fringe idea. I would like the Tories to embrace it and I advocate it, but its currently on the fringes and so isn't associated with any party.
The issue with antisemitism is not with fringe activisim that doesn't engage with any party, it isn't that there were fringe leftwingers some of whom were racist - there is sadly a racist minority in all philosophies - it was when the Labour Party became institutionally infested with and led by antisemites.
Your trying to conflate a philosophy with a party being led by an outright antisemite is just pure distractionism. If a mainstream party embraces Eng Nat activism then we would be able to judge that party as and when it does by how it acts.
There's no need to panic and try to reframe what I'm saying so as to be able to call it gibberish.
Yes, ardent Eng Nat is fringe not mainstream. And thank heavens for this since - as I say - it's strongly correlated to the sort of hard and reactionary right wing politics that nobody wishes to see except for its proponents.
Of course you would know all this if you were to look into it.
I'm not sure it'll be as damaging as people think, politically speaking, just because it's so difficult to justify an 8% increase for the old at a time when the young are getting completely screwed.
The Triple Lock, like the FTPA and so much else the Heir to Blair did is long overdue for the scrapheap.
This is the problem with Tories: you are so inconsistent. Johnson has ditched pretty much everything Cameron, Major and Thatcher ever did. The obvious conclusion is that one day a future Tory PM will ditch everything Johnson does.
The modern iteration of the Tory party:
- English Nationalist, not One Nation - Revolutionary, not Conservative - High tax/high debt, not Friedman - State control, not free market - Social engineering, not conservatism - Nasty, not paternal - Reactive, not confident - Populist, not principled - Clown, not competence - Degenerate, not moral - Cash for pals, not good governance - Fiscal spaffing, not fiscal moderation - Fuck business, not pro business - Proroguing parliament, not the rule of law - Lying to the monarch, not respecting institutions - Authoritarian, not liberal - Corruption, not ethics
The only constant is the blue rosettes.
The Conservative Party used to be one that I could disagree with but respect as a British institution. That party is gone and the thing that has replaced it has no ideology, which is really sad, to be honest.
According to party loyalist HYUFD it has transmogrified into the English Nationalist Party. The honest thing to do would be to change the name, as that more accurately reflects the nature of the organisation. But alas honesty is not one of their core characteristics.
The notion that the Tories are an English Nationalist Party is completely farcical. As much as I would want it to be one, it very clearly isn't.
If the Tories were then they'd be pushing for a second Scottish independence referendum and pushing for a Yes vote in that. Is that happening? I don't think so.
One wonders why you feel so at home as an English Nationalist and those that aren't, have resigned or been kicked out, if what you are saying is true.
Because its not true.
The ones who resigned or got kicked out were those who were European nationalists and couldn't cope with their grief at losing their European identity.
England wasn't here nor there for that.
What has Brexit got to do with European identity? Whether you like it or not, England/the UK is within the continent of Europe. We will always be European.
Even your mate BoJo said that when the referendum result came in. Your pathetic EDL-lite style posturing shows through in this post.
Perhaps you should ask yourself - but I am sure you don't care - why the Tory Party has abandoned so many people that voted for it for decades. And whether you think that's right.
Your naivety is astonishing.
What the heck has the continent of Europe got to do with being in the European Union?
Should those in Alberta or Quebec or Jalisco be considered Americans and join the United States of America?
That's got nothing to do with England, or EDL or anything else. If you're so childish and puerile as you consider that being in a continent means you must be part of a union then that's just farcical.
Anyway the Tory Party has not abandoned so many that voted for it for decades. The Tory Party got more voters than it has in decades. So yes I absolutely 100% think that's right and anyone so undemocratic as to like you equate Brexit with "EDL" or English nationalism absolutely should be told to take a cold shower until they stop being so silly.
Absolutely not a personal inference about you but did you ever take my recommendation and check out the links between Eng Nat and the far right?
There are no links.
Since I can't examine inside your head for what you fictionalise, I can't do much more than that.
You've looked into it and found that there are no links? I find this hard to believe. I think you haven't looked into it.
No, there are no links to look into.
That's like me saying to look into the links between ASFsdnbvjisfgadf and GFDGHSUIGSFcassd. Are you going to do that? Or are you going to dismiss it as gibberish?
That's a rather silly response. But, ok, if you want to stay in blissful ignorance about the seamy end of Eng Nat, pretend it's not there, that's your prerogative. I can't force you to take a look at it. I'm a bit surprised you'd take the approach of the far left to their links with antisemitism, but it's a funny old world sometimes.
I have an issue with the links between the then leader of the Labour Party and antisemitism. Or others high up in the Labour Party and antisemitism.
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Yes, I'm talking about Eng Nat political activism rather than any particular party.
That's meaningless gibberish.
There's no mainstream Eng Nat political activism, it is currently a fringe idea. I would like the Tories to embrace it and I advocate it, but its currently on the fringes and so isn't associated with any party.
The issue with antisemitism is not with fringe activisim that doesn't engage with any party, it isn't that there were fringe leftwingers some of whom were racist - there is sadly a racist minority in all philosophies - it was when the Labour Party became institutionally infested with and led by antisemites.
Your trying to conflate a philosophy with a party being led by an outright antisemite is just pure distractionism. If a mainstream party embraces Eng Nat activism then we would be able to judge that party as and when it dohes by how it acts.
What do you think Francois, Bone, Cash, Chope, Philip Davies and their Brexity chums, and to an extent Johnson stand for if not English Nationalism?
Comments
Since there is no English National Party, there by default can not be any such links between them and the far right because the first part of your fictional link does not exist.
Things that don't exist, can't be linked to other things. In order to be linked, it must first actually exist.
Course filling is inexact. You have an absolute capacity and try and judge your admissions to get close to that. But some miss the grades, some do better than expected and take a different offer, some just change their minds.
So say you have a course at Leeds with absolute capactity limit 100 (lecturers, facilities). Normally you get about 80 and that's viable for the course, let's say that's break-even. This year you have 120. Getting staff in/increasing facilities is expensive and this may be a short term thing.
You're (say 3 year course) 20 people x £9k fees per year x 3 years up on your break even point for the course, so up £540k with minimal additional costs - mostly some extra marking, maybe a few more postgrads helping out on the courses (they're not necessarily paid for this, neither will your lecturers necessarily be paid more for the extra marking, probably not in fact).
You can easily afford to pay 20 people a one off £10k plus first year accommodation costs (real cost to uni - what, £5k maybe?) so that's 20*£15k = £300k.
Ending up ~£240k ahead is preferable to enlarging the course in the long term, unless you think there will be long term demand.
However I'd be a bit cautious about that number, we had an extended holiday weekend which affects testing, so we got a few days of low numbers followed by big numbers.
39% opposed, 38% in favour.
63% of Tory voters are in favour, 61% of Labour voters are opposed
https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1425774829421142021?s=20
The first thing the Labour Prime Minister would do before Scottish MPs leave the Commons is to change the nature of the Commons. Introduce Proportional Representation and hold a new election on or before the date Scotland goes independent.
Remember this:
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2019/07/17/false-recall-and-how-it-affects-polling
In one sentence all the blame is passed back to the Scottish Government.
In 1997 for example Labour got 60% of the seats under FPTP but would only have got 43% of the seats under PR.
In any case as I said before I voted for AV in 2011 and am not that bothered either way about PR
🔵Con 41 (+1)
🔴Lab 33 (-1)
🟠LDM 10 (=)
🟢GRN 4 (-2)
🟡SNP 4 (=)
⚪️Other 7 (+2)
6-8 Aug, 2047 UK adults
(Changes from 30 Jul - 1 Aug) https://twitter.com/SavantaComRes/status/1425776406622085122/photo/1
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/04/23/a-guest-thread-on-scottish-independence-and-electoral-reform/
Slightly better than 8 runs from 9 overs, but even so…
The only party whose chances of being in government are greatly improved by PR are the LDs
I second (or third or fourth) the thumbs up for Leeds. Worked with a lot of people from there and attended some of their seminar series etc. Good uni and a nice city with pretty easy access to the greenery around, too.
The Tories have usually only one reliable coalition ally - the Irish Unionists (and not at the moment, either). The Liberal Democrats might come into play from time to time (2010, or 1983 under PR) but they are not instinctively Tory supporters.
With rare exceptions, Labour can call on half a dozen. Particularly, under a PR system you would expect the Greens to become significant players. The Liberal Democrats. Plaid would likely pick up more votes.
In addition, it makes it unlikely the Tories even in coalition could lock in big majorities, which would greatly strengthen Labour’s hand over legislation even in opposition.
With FPTP they have lost every election bar three in England since 1966. Under PR they would have been in contention to form a coalition in every single one.
PR would be a huge boost for Labour in the event of Scotland leaving. Your suggestion that a few MPs might vote against because unemployment is about as convincing as Jos Buttler’s defensive technique.
Whether they would do it, as Philip suggests, is a different question. That brings in the altogether more difficult tactical question of LA control. While PR would help them in England as a whole, it would bugger them in their regional fiefdoms, for much the same reasons. And if FPTP is a mixed blessing at national level, it would be indefensible in a local context as the sole survivor.
So tactical considerations may come into play.
https://twitter.com/gbnews/status/1425192585841233921?s=21
Super daunting for one so young. Rife with challenges, but what a fortunate opportunity!
In response:
a) I must admit I didn't realise it was 8%, my mistake. I just checked. I assumed less.
b) Assumes full employment for a lifetime and as you say for someone starting out now, not a 30 or 40 year old so we are looking 40 or 50 years down the line before even this pittance kicks in.
c) Still a very, very small pension in the mid tens of pounds a week. So not something people should be relying to live on.
I'm not being critical of any of this. I just didn't think HYUFD should be relying on this fact in his argument. I suspect it is worth much less than he thought it may be worth.
In the 2 post war elections they had the balance of power, in Feb 1974 Thorpe got very close to a deal with Heath and in 2010 Clegg actually supported Cameron's Tories in power for 5 years.
All that PR would mean is we have more Tory-LD and more Labour-LD governments and virtually no Tory majority or Labour majority governments. The right of the Tories would split off and also likely link up with Farage and win some seats and the Corbynite left of Labour would leave the party and start their own party and win a few seats too, as would the Greens.
Corbyn for example, would not have come anywhere near as close to a majority as he did in 2017 under FPTP under PR.
It would also as you say mean Labour lose full control of fiefdoms like Newham and Manchester and also mean never again would Labour win as many MPs as it did in landslide years like 1945, 1966, 1997 and 2001
Missed their support act due to having another drink in halls instead. Some band called 'The Killers'. Still, don't think they ever amounted to anything
(Richard II was written 1595–96 and published in a quarto edition in 1597.)
Mind, he did also write about the shitty-cornered ('nookshotten') Isle of Albion. But it was the French speaking (IIRC, in HenryV).
Furthermore his initiative to try to outdo the Greens may well see problems, not least the way he wants to trash 1,000 Scottish plus jobs
As an example a few years ago a friend of mine was 67 and still working. He asked me for help in working out his pensions as he had 3 private pensions and had not yet claimed his state pension. He was a single guy having recently divorced and living in rented accommodation.
We worked out that he had a pension pot of around £600k. The monthly amount he would receive meant he would need to live to 107 to get the £600k. Therefore he took the money all at once. He bought himself a house, has a nice lump sum left over, plus his state pension, plus he still works a bit. It made no financial sense to have the monthly amount.
And what about SERPS? Some of that state pension was specifically linked to earnings, and then later on workers could opt out of SERPS and pay a reduced NI amount provided they put the equivalent amount into a private pension. In your scheme, those that did that don't get penalised, those that didn't (based on promises made to them at the time) do.
Actually, not so much 'very difficult politically' as 'a non-starter politically'.
There was a bit of a kerfuffle about the students hanging out in the studenty areas of Leeds, no social distancing all that jazz, and those areas did have huge covid numbers, but I don't blame them. I'd've done exactly the same at their age.
Face-to-face teaching will be better too!
https://twitter.com/benarty/status/1425700514205929475?s=21
In 2017 Corbyn won 263 seats under FPTP with 40% of the vote.
Under pure PR he would have won 260 seats. The Liberal Democrats would have had around 50. Plaid and the Greens 13.
With Sinn Fein out, that’s enough for a majority.
And the Tories would have had 273 seats and been out of office.
Now that presupposes people would have voted the same way, which is almost certainly a false assumption. But since the people who voted Labour probably did so on the assumption their favoured party couldn’t win the seat, that would not be to the benefit of the Tories.
Those are facts. Can’t help it if you don’t like them. Just stop arguing against them.
I have to go. Have a good afternoon.
I'd be interested to hear of how many opted out of SERPS who were not in a corporate pension scheme.
I could do so and keep my corporate scheme pension, as the particular scheme I was in was "contracted in". This was 1991-ish. At the time the best assessed pension manager was ... Equitable Life.
I never found anyone who could realistically move my smallish pot from Equitable when they went out of control, so it has been stuck with them until they were recently bought out.
I had a small amount of Compo from EL, and the pension pot paid into from 1991-1997 with my SERPS contributions alongside my corporate pension is now worth about 50k.
Which on an index linked pension annuity is worth something like £1500 a year, I think. So a small bonus top up on the corporate pension which would cover the cost of a nice holiday. But it has another decade or more to run.
Yes, he’d go out of his way to find places where the age of consent was 14 or 15, rather than the 17 or 18 that’s usual in the USA. It doesn’t mean that people did anything illegal, and most of the comments now are more about shaming than exposing actual illegality.
a) Of course you can add more to your pension. Many of us have healthy pension pots, but the point I was making was for the vast numbers who are on low salaries who don't. You made an assumption, that I challenged as not being accurate for many people.
b) Yes they are on top of the state pension, but again not a point I was arguing against. I simply pointed out you were assuming these pots were worth more than they are likely to be. But on that point we have had this argument before. You want the state pension to be linked to inflation and not earnings and therefore will diminish in real terms year after year. I gave you the stats previously for a policemen, nurse and someone else I can't remember, from a hundred years ago, linking their salaries to inflation to give a current day worth. It was worth a pittance in today's terms.
Corbyn was just 60 odd seats from a majority under FPTP.
Under PR he would have needed 50%+ of the vote for a majority.
The LDs made clear they would not back Corbyn
There's no mainstream Eng Nat political activism, it is currently a fringe idea. I would like the Tories to embrace it and I advocate it, but its currently on the fringes and so isn't associated with any party.
The issue with antisemitism is not with fringe activisim that doesn't engage with any party, it isn't that there were fringe leftwingers some of whom were racist - there is sadly a racist minority in all philosophies - it was when the Labour Party became institutionally infested with and led by antisemites.
Your trying to conflate a philosophy with a party being led by an outright antisemite is just pure distractionism. If a mainstream party embraces Eng Nat activism then we would be able to judge that party as and when it does by how it acts.
This autumn's budget is key.
I knew the headline would be the worst if it!
The all important ‘Satisfaction’ numbers are Boris 41 Sir Keir 27
“Key findings in the poll show:
* The Conservatives maintain a strong lead over Labour, on 41 per cent (up one percentage point on July) compared to 30 per cent (down one percentage point).
* Mr Johnson still has a negative net satisfaction rating, at -11, with 41 per cent satisfied and 52 per cent dissatisfied, though this is a slight improvement from July’s -16 net rating.
* Sir Keir Starmer has seen his net satisfaction drop marginally, from -23 to -26, driven by the proportion dissatisfied rising from 50 per cent to 53 per cent.”
From what I've read of how he made his "fortune", it sounds like money-laundering.
The remarkable thing is that so many actually study!
Lab 30
The first double digit Tory lead for a month
At the moment we've got the two poles of opinion saying pensioners are either pampered, or in penury. Acknowledging that both things might be true is the first step towards constructive policy.
I seem to recall quite a lot of centre-left supporters of the Campaign for an English Parliament, but I haven’t heard a peep from that organisation in about a decade.
He would have been hammered in tax taking it all at once. That is madness.
I wonder what happened to get my post in reply to you last night deleted. That was odd wasn’t it?
Yes, ardent Eng Nat is fringe not mainstream. And thank heavens for this since - as I say - it's strongly correlated to the sort of hard and reactionary right wing politics that nobody wishes to see except for its proponents.
Of course you would know all this if you were to look into it.
What about it is English?