The main swing from the Tories has actually been from over 65s due to the 1 year freezing of the triple lock, not from under 65s due to the NI rise
Isn't that because a greater share of over 65 voters who support the Tories do so for self-interested reasons (ie the Tories keep buying their votes)? So they're much more susceptible to swing against the Tories if the bribery gets dialled down a bit. By contrast, nobody under 65 votes Tory for self-interested reasons as the party does nothing for us. Anyone in their thirties who votes Tory must do it for ideological reasons, and they are less likely to switch their allegiance. Plus of course there's a purely mechanistic effect at work: if the Tories lose 10% of their support in any age group that's going to show up as a bigger swing where they have 60% of the age group voting for them, versus one where they only get 15% of that age group's votes.
That's a lot of Don't knows there who the Tories need to win back...
David Herdson in his excellent comments also makes the point that there is no evidence of a shift from right to left generally. Whatever right leaning people are doing it is not moving to LD/Gn/Lab.
Starmer now has a big chance to reconfigure the centre left; he needs both a clear alternative policy and not waffle (I agree with Cyclefree) and to stop the centre left vote splitting.
I don't think there will be a long term drift to a right wing Tory alternative this time. Boris has united the centre right; SKS has to do the same on the centre left.
The COVID-19 infection rate in countries under @JoeBiden's travel ban is LOWER than the infection rate in countries from which entry is allowed. (And of course, MUCH lower than US).
Which proves there is a whole heap of opportunity around the social care tax - I suspect it will be a continual issue that slowly chips away at Tory support within the working class.
Separately the administrators of Cleveland Bridge have discovered that there isn't a viable takeover offer. So that is another historic engineering firm gone in a Red Wall seat...
Graduates earning over £27,000 a year are not working class, they are middle class, mainly living in London and other big cities
But they can’t afford to buy a house, which is the root of the problem.
Thatcher knew that people who own houses vote Conservative. If large number of the middle classes can’t afford to buy property, then Conservatives lose elections.
North of the Watford gap they can afford to buy a house, hence the Tory gains in the RedWall in 2019.
South of the Watford gap they can't without an inheritance or gift from their parents, hence London is now majority rent and the safest Labour region in the UK and the Tories made no net gains from Labour and the LDs in the SouthEast in 2019
Correct, so if Conservatives want to gain votes, they need to address the fact that many people can’t buy houses.
Inheritance is a total red herring, thanks to increasing life expectancy, many people now won’t inherit anything until their sixties.
Inheritance is worse than a red herring, its virtually irrelevant to almost everyone. Without wanting to get personal HYUFD's obsession with it not only shows that he's completely out of touch, has never had to work to make ends meet and worry about paying the bills each week, but I rather suspect he must be an only child.
Because when you actually stop and think about what 'inheritance' means to most people it is absolutely sod all. It certainly doesn't pay for a house.
A typical set of grandparents nowadays who might die in their 90s could be leaving behind: ~3-4 children themselves in their 60s+ ~8-10 grandchildren adults ~10-20+ great-grandchildren That's a total of ~20-30 heirs. If you divide a £550,000 house evenly between 30 people even without any legal fees or costs whatsoever then that comes to ~£18k each. An £18k inheritance isn't enough to pay for a deposit on a £550k house, let alone pay for a house.
Even if you forget the great-grandchildren and only split it between the children and grandchildren, its still not even a 10% deposit each.
The notion that an inheritance pays for a house is complete nonsense. It may pay for a deposit if you're very, very lucky - but then we should be stopping to think how we can make sure that working people can accrue a deposit off their own efforts.
PS for the Queen as an example, who is not an atypical 90+ year old when it comes to kids and grandkids etc she has 4 children, 8 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren. That's 23 heirs she has and most grandparents her age would have around that mark. And that's not counting any in-laws either.
Whilst not disagreeing with your overall sentiment I think you make a number of basic flaws in your reasoning there.
The vast majority of people do not have 3-4 children. Indeed birthrates have been dropping for a long time and are well below the 2.2 or whatever it is we need to have a stable population. Hence the need for importing labour. The Royal Family are not typical in terms of their numbers of children. Many families don't even get to the 'heir and a spare' stage.
Also the idea that people split inheritance evenly amongst all descendants is clearly rubbish. At very best on your example - which again is massively inflated - they would probably leave inheritance only to the adults. So generally you are looking at that money being slit between perhaps 7 or 8 people at very best. Call it 10 if you are being generous. At £55K each that is certainly enough to help with a deposit on a house and get people on the ladder.
Below 2.2 now but for today's 90 year olds it was around that figure when they had kids.
However the point is that even if we do say split 10 ways then that's a deposit then that's great for those who get a deposit of that there's no doubt - but my point is that HYUFD has been saying all week that having a 10% deposit is not enough to buy a house, that you need an inheritance.
However the problem is with house prices the way they are (and we've not even considered legal fees and much more being deducted from the potential house value being bequeathed) you're only going to end up at approximately that deposit level, not considerably more than it.
If a deposit is enough then that's great. But then if its enough, we ought to be thinking about what ways a young couple nowadays can accrue a deposit without relying upon "wait for a grandparent to die" as a solution.
Oh I don't disagree with any of that. The trouble is that until that happens then inheritance or some other form of help from the older generation is the only way to go. If the Government starts coming down hard on inheritance again then expect lots more elderly to look at doing the capital release and then giving the money to their kids before they die.
The main swing from the Tories has actually been from over 65s due to the 1 year freezing of the triple lock, not from under 65s due to the NI rise
This was my first thought. Con polling slumps and the assumption is it's due to the regressive nature of the NI hike. But this could be because we on here feel that way. We hate that NI hike. Or brand new payroll tax rather. Perhaps if they'd done Income Tax (clearly better per the cognescenti) the polling drop would have been worse. Polls did say NI was the least unpopular option. That's why Sunak went for it. And then what about that other thing they did at the same time, ditching the Triple Lock? Cheered on here, yes, and a no-brainer really, but maybe not cheered out there by lots of pensioners. So could that, not the NI fiasco, be the political misjudgment?
Surely it's just a function of the Tories having a much higher share of older voters. The triple lock announcement was completely overshadowed. The changes are just a general sense of disquiet with the government for putting up taxes. I suspect the politically engaged were more likely to change their voting intention, perhaps why the Lib Dems and Reform did well.
In view of the strong relationship between BCCI and ECB, the BCCI has offered to ECB a rescheduling of the cancelled Test match. Both the Boards will work towards finding a window to reschedule this Test match.
It's not the worst solution. But there's not room in June or July with the ODIs, a one off May test before the NZ series fits.
It won't fit.
It'll clash with the IPL.
They'll play a Test match in parallel with the limited overs series India is due to play. It's the only way to fit it in. It'll be the next step to splitting the sport between first-class cricket and the one-day formats.
Interesting to see which teams get the multi-format players.
Given that we have made a big concession to India in not requiring them to concede they maybe forced to do this. They only need a draw so could pack the team with batters. But a simultaneous series isn't new. In the 1930s England played simultaneous Test series, against WI and NZ I think.
If it's in parallel with the T20Is then they can play those in the evening and there won't even be a broadcasting clash.
Edit: Old Trafford has the first T20I on July 1st - I don't know how soon after that the groundsman could have a Test strip prepared, but I think 4th-8th July is a decent bet. Only directly clashes with the final T20I at the Ageas Bowl on day 3, with the second T20I and the first ODI on the days immediately before and after.
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Oppositions can sit on the fence for up to six months before an election. They are the opposition after all.
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
In view of the strong relationship between BCCI and ECB, the BCCI has offered to ECB a rescheduling of the cancelled Test match. Both the Boards will work towards finding a window to reschedule this Test match.
It's not the worst solution. But there's not room in June or July with the ODIs, a one off May test before the NZ series fits.
It won't fit.
It'll clash with the IPL.
They'll play a Test match in parallel with the limited overs series India is due to play. It's the only way to fit it in. It'll be the next step to splitting the sport between first-class cricket and the one-day formats.
Interesting to see which teams get the multi-format players.
Given that we have made a big concession to India in not requiring them to concede they maybe forced to do this. They only need a draw so could pack the team with batters. But a simultaneous series isn't new. In the 1930s England played simultaneous Test series, against WI and NZ I think.
England is quite well split for that already. If Stokes is available he should be in the test side mind. Root is the test captain.
English cricket’s relationship with India faces a potential fork in the road following an informal request to move the fifth Test in September to the start of the series – or even cancel it altogether – in order to complete the Indian Premier League.
The IPL was suspended on 4 May amid an outbreak of Covid-19 among the franchises. But with the 31 IPL games still to be played worth an estimated £200m in broadcast money to the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the motivation to complete the 2021 season is obvious.
The T20 World Cup starting in mid‑October means any restarted IPL campaign – most likely held in the United Arab Emirates – would have to come first. But India’s five‑Test series in England does not finish until 14 September in Manchester, which would disrupt such a plan.
While the England and Wales Cricket Board insists no “official” request has been made, one scenario understood to have been floated in talks with the BCCI is to move the fifth Test forward to the end of July, before the scheduled first Test at Trent Bridge starting on 4 August.
Could be that, or it could be that there were a lot more votes available to be lost in that age group.
What proportion of over-65s are still working? Presumably many are high-earners at that point in their lives. In that group myself, I'm in favour of sharing in the tax rise, but at an instinctive level it does feel more of a direct hit than when I read about something that doesn't affect me. The impact is around three times greater in my case than ending the triple lock, and it's an extra tax rather than a windfall foregone.
Obviously I wasn't voting Tory anyway, but less political types who absent-mindedly vote Tory out of habit may well shift to "don't know" or Reform.
Surely it's just a function of the Tories having a much higher share of older voters. The triple lock announcement was completely overshadowed. The changes are just a general sense of disquiet with the government for putting up taxes. I suspect the politically engaged were more likely to change their voting intention, perhaps why the Lib Dems and Reform did well.
Not entirely: there is a greater loss with increasing age (grossing up to give the original vote and assuming the youngster sample is too small to be reliable, but it could be real for them - longer till their mum and dad fall off their perches).
Loss of about 1 in 6 over 65s, one in 8 50-64s, one in 10 25-49s.
Could be that, or it could be that there were a lot more votes available to be lost in that age group.
What proportion of over-65s are still working? Presumably many are high-earners at that point in their lives. In that group myself, I'm in favour of sharing in the tax rise, but at an instinctive level it does feel more of a direct hit than when I read about something that doesn't affect me. The impact is around three times greater in my case than ending the triple lock, and it's an extra tax rather than a windfall foregone.
Obviously I wasn't voting Tory anyway, but less political types who absent-mindedly vote Tory out of habit may well shift to "don't know" or Reform.
Think it is about 15% of what they call "pensioner units", which includes couples where one partner is below state pension age, as well as single pensioners. Of those about 16% are high earners (over £1k per week earnings income alone).
In view of the strong relationship between BCCI and ECB, the BCCI has offered to ECB a rescheduling of the cancelled Test match. Both the Boards will work towards finding a window to reschedule this Test match.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
"The first, somewhat surprising finding is that, when questioned, Americans overwhelmingly (90%) see themselves as being ‘Middle Class’. Only 2% see themselves as Upper Class and around 8% see themselves as Lower Class. Rose himself defined the Middle Classes in terms of multiples of the Federal Poverty Level. Using this metric, Middle Class was x1.5 to x17.5 FPL. Importantly Rose found that the fortunes of those defined as ‘Lower’ and ‘Middle’ Middle Class (up to x5 FPL) were much worse and increasingly divergent from those of ‘Upper’ Middle Class."
"Middle class" is American for "ordinary people like me". Our "upper class" is, as HYUFD says a side-effect of the hereditary monarchy and all that, and nowadays regarded on the whole with amusement rather than admiration. Saying you went to Eton and you're related to an Earl is not a promising pickup line or something to put on your job application, though it may help get into Johnson's Cabinet.
That's a lot of Don't knows there who the Tories need to win back...
David Herdson in his excellent comments also makes the point that there is no evidence of a shift from right to left generally. Whatever right leaning people are doing it is not moving to LD/Gn/Lab.
Starmer now has a big chance to reconfigure the centre left; he needs both a clear alternative policy and not waffle (I agree with Cyclefree) and to stop the centre left vote splitting.
I don't think there will be a long term drift to a right wing Tory alternative this time. Boris has united the centre right; SKS has to do the same on the centre left.
In which case it's worth looking at the actual polling figures sorted from right to left
For Labour to improve they need to pull votes from both the LDs and the Greens and that is going to be hard to do unless they accept that any attempt to recover the Green / Corbyn voters will lose similar numbers from the middle ground.
Which proves there is a whole heap of opportunity around the social care tax - I suspect it will be a continual issue that slowly chips away at Tory support within the working class.
Separately the administrators of Cleveland Bridge have discovered that there isn't a viable takeover offer. So that is another historic engineering firm gone in a Red Wall seat...
Graduates earning over £27,000 a year are not working class, they are middle class, mainly living in London and other big cities
There are working class graduates too! However for political analysis, there is too much focus on working class, when what will count electorally is workers, whatever their class.
If you have a degree you can never be fully working class, certainly not in terms of education and culture.
Which is it? Most people with a degree can't afford a £900k home.
AR says if you can't afford it you are not middle class. HYUFD says if you have a degree you can't be working class.
It is all nonsense.
HYUFD has his psephological strengths but so much of his dogmatic posting is just horseshit.
I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come. It's a cultural thing; where you were born, what your parents did, what your friends and family's occupations are, the school you went to, how you were brought up, how you see the world.
It's not better than being middle-class. There are aspects of the working-class culture and outlook I dislike. There are elements of middle-classness I like and have adopted. Through uni I have met and made good middle-class friends. But I am undoubtedly still, and will remain until I croak, working class.
It's not just measured in income or qualifications anymore. There's nuance there, shades of grey. Stuff that HYUFD doesn't do very well.
'I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come' no you are middle class both by education and job.
Just because you maybe working class by background does not mean you are working class now and it is patronising to those who are still working class to suggest you are
Nice dogmatic reply.
Look, I'm sure IRL you're a lovely bloke, and I don't want to get into an online slagging match with some random off the internet. Life's too short and it's a Friday and I know when it comes to stubbornness you put many mules to shame, so I don't want to get into a jaw-clenchingly irritating, ultimately futile back-and-forth with you.
But I will say that what you've written above is laughable.
On your definition of middle class then, the only people who are middle class are those with upper middle class parents, who went to private school, graduated from university and now have a professional job ie about less than 5% of the population
Class is a bizarre thing and the traditional ideas are probably a bit redundant now.
I'd say my parents were working class - they were poor. My dad worked in clerical work, so that rules him out I guess if you make working class manual labour type jobs - but if so, there aren't that many of those now. My mum was clerical pre-children, in later years she worked in retail until retiring. I've worked (since uni) in civil service, academia and freelance writing and consulting. I can't, in all honesty, call myself anything other than middle class. I have a (very) middle class job, a middle class house, a middle class wife, even (daughter of teachers, one a head teacher). I'm not proud of that nor ashamed of having a working class (I would say) childhood, it's just my honest assessment of what I am. I'd feel like a fraud claiming to be working class.
Dad was first in the guards then the police, ultimately rising to retire as an Acting Superintendent. Mum did mostly lowish paid admin roles (ended up in the NHS). At stages in the their lives they had very little disposable income - Dad tells a story about his MiL giving them 10 quid for the baby (my sister) which they took to the pub as they hadn't been out for 3 months. Growing up though we were definitely middle class (nice 3 bed semi in a good village, two holidays a year, one of which became overseas by the time I reached 15), two cars. Neither went to Uni. Were they working class? I went to grammar school, then Uni and have never left (PhD and now an academic). I am very much middle class. It all seems a bit of a stunt and very hard to work out.
Today, we shared positive pre-clinical data demonstrating our ability to combine 6 mRNAs against 3 different respiratory viruses in 1 vaccine: COVID-19 booster + Flu booster + RSV booster. https://twitter.com/moderna_tx/status/1435978825377136641
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
So Tories taking a hit in London and the South. They really are an ungrateful bunch of...
Loathe though I am to mention "Scottish subsamples" - what does Con 0, SNP +5, Lab -2 augur?
Might just be fluctuation plus rounding (!) - SNP vote is usually 4 of perhaps 5 anyway. Maybe the last one was at the other end of the fluctuation range (3 or something) and it just happens to be a higher fluctuation this time.
Which proves there is a whole heap of opportunity around the social care tax - I suspect it will be a continual issue that slowly chips away at Tory support within the working class.
Separately the administrators of Cleveland Bridge have discovered that there isn't a viable takeover offer. So that is another historic engineering firm gone in a Red Wall seat...
Graduates earning over £27,000 a year are not working class, they are middle class, mainly living in London and other big cities
There are working class graduates too! However for political analysis, there is too much focus on working class, when what will count electorally is workers, whatever their class.
If you have a degree you can never be fully working class, certainly not in terms of education and culture.
Which is it? Most people with a degree can't afford a £900k home.
AR says if you can't afford it you are not middle class. HYUFD says if you have a degree you can't be working class.
It is all nonsense.
HYUFD has his psephological strengths but so much of his dogmatic posting is just horseshit.
I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come. It's a cultural thing; where you were born, what your parents did, what your friends and family's occupations are, the school you went to, how you were brought up, how you see the world.
It's not better than being middle-class. There are aspects of the working-class culture and outlook I dislike. There are elements of middle-classness I like and have adopted. Through uni I have met and made good middle-class friends. But I am undoubtedly still, and will remain until I croak, working class.
It's not just measured in income or qualifications anymore. There's nuance there, shades of grey. Stuff that HYUFD doesn't do very well.
'I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come' no you are middle class both by education and job.
Just because you maybe working class by background does not mean you are working class now and it is patronising to those who are still working class to suggest you are
Nice dogmatic reply.
Look, I'm sure IRL you're a lovely bloke, and I don't want to get into an online slagging match with some random off the internet. Life's too short and it's a Friday and I know when it comes to stubbornness you put many mules to shame, so I don't want to get into a jaw-clenchingly irritating, ultimately futile back-and-forth with you.
But I will say that what you've written above is laughable.
On your definition of middle class then, the only people who are middle class are those with upper middle class parents, who went to private school, graduated from university and now have a professional job ie about less than 5% of the population
Class is a bizarre thing and the traditional ideas are probably a bit redundant now.
I'd say my parents were working class - they were poor. My dad worked in clerical work, so that rules him out I guess if you make working class manual labour type jobs - but if so, there aren't that many of those now. My mum was clerical pre-children, in later years she worked in retail until retiring. I've worked (since uni) in civil service, academia and freelance writing and consulting. I can't, in all honesty, call myself anything other than middle class. I have a (very) middle class job, a middle class house, a middle class wife, even (daughter of teachers, one a head teacher). I'm not proud of that nor ashamed of having a working class (I would say) childhood, it's just my honest assessment of what I am. I'd feel like a fraud claiming to be working class.
Dad was first in the guards then the police, ultimately rising to retire as an Acting Superintendent. Mum did mostly lowish paid admin roles (ended up in the NHS). At stages in the their lives they had very little disposable income - Dad tells a story about his MiL giving them 10 quid for the baby (my sister) which they took to the pub as they hadn't been out for 3 months. Growing up though we were definitely middle class (nice 3 bed semi in a good village, two holidays a year, one of which became overseas by the time I reached 15), two cars. Neither went to Uni. Were they working class? I went to grammar school, then Uni and have never left (PhD and now an academic). I am very much middle class. It all seems a bit of a stunt and very hard to work out.
Given what my wife and I do when compared to my parents 25 years ago so at roughly similar ages it's remarkable how much more spare cash we have compared to them.
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Broadly, I think Labour's line is going to be that we do indeed need to raise money for "the Tories' NHS backlog" but it should come from CGT and other things like higher-rate income tax, multinationals and new higher-rate council tax bands, with a delphic nod towards wealth tax. I don't think it's wise to be more specific two years out from an election with the world economy in turmoil, but that will be the direction of travel.
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Oppositions can sit on the fence for up to six months before an election. They are the opposition after all.
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
Labour could do that.
But they have been IMO an empty vessel for so long that I think they should not do that. They should do a lot of hard thinking and come up with well-though through proposals which withstand criticism so that they really do present themselves as a serious alternative government.
At the moment it's all a bit "I wouldn't do it like that" whingeing and not much else besides. That is not enough.
Which proves there is a whole heap of opportunity around the social care tax - I suspect it will be a continual issue that slowly chips away at Tory support within the working class.
Separately the administrators of Cleveland Bridge have discovered that there isn't a viable takeover offer. So that is another historic engineering firm gone in a Red Wall seat...
Graduates earning over £27,000 a year are not working class, they are middle class, mainly living in London and other big cities
But they can’t afford to buy a house, which is the root of the problem.
Thatcher knew that people who own houses vote Conservative. If large number of the middle classes can’t afford to buy property, then Conservatives lose elections.
North of the Watford gap they can afford to buy a house, hence the Tory gains in the RedWall in 2019.
South of the Watford gap they can't without an inheritance or gift from their parents, hence London is now majority rent and the safest Labour region in the UK and the Tories made no net gains from Labour and the LDs in the SouthEast in 2019
Correct, so if Conservatives want to gain votes, they need to address the fact that many people can’t buy houses.
Inheritance is a total red herring, thanks to increasing life expectancy, many people now won’t inherit anything until their sixties.
Inheritance is worse than a red herring, its virtually irrelevant to almost everyone. Without wanting to get personal HYUFD's obsession with it not only shows that he's completely out of touch, has never had to work to make ends meet and worry about paying the bills each week, but I rather suspect he must be an only child.
Because when you actually stop and think about what 'inheritance' means to most people it is absolutely sod all. It certainly doesn't pay for a house.
A typical set of grandparents nowadays who might die in their 90s could be leaving behind: ~3-4 children themselves in their 60s+ ~8-10 grandchildren adults ~10-20+ great-grandchildren That's a total of ~20-30 heirs. If you divide a £550,000 house evenly between 30 people even without any legal fees or costs whatsoever then that comes to ~£18k each. An £18k inheritance isn't enough to pay for a deposit on a £550k house, let alone pay for a house.
Even if you forget the great-grandchildren and only split it between the children and grandchildren, its still not even a 10% deposit each.
The notion that an inheritance pays for a house is complete nonsense. It may pay for a deposit if you're very, very lucky - but then we should be stopping to think how we can make sure that working people can accrue a deposit off their own efforts.
PS for the Queen as an example, who is not an atypical 90+ year old when it comes to kids and grandkids etc she has 4 children, 8 grandchildren and 11 great grandchildren. That's 23 heirs she has and most grandparents her age would have around that mark. And that's not counting any in-laws either.
Whilst not disagreeing with your overall sentiment I think you make a number of basic flaws in your reasoning there.
The vast majority of people do not have 3-4 children. Indeed birthrates have been dropping for a long time and are well below the 2.2 or whatever it is we need to have a stable population. Hence the need for importing labour. The Royal Family are not typical in terms of their numbers of children. Many families don't even get to the 'heir and a spare' stage.
Also the idea that people split inheritance evenly amongst all descendants is clearly rubbish. At very best on your example - which again is massively inflated - they would probably leave inheritance only to the adults. So generally you are looking at that money being slit between perhaps 7 or 8 people at very best. Call it 10 if you are being generous. At £55K each that is certainly enough to help with a deposit on a house and get people on the ladder.
Below 2.2 now but for today's 90 year olds it was around that figure when they had kids.
However the point is that even if we do say split 10 ways then that's a deposit then that's great for those who get a deposit of that there's no doubt - but my point is that HYUFD has been saying all week that having a 10% deposit is not enough to buy a house, that you need an inheritance.
However the problem is with house prices the way they are (and we've not even considered legal fees and much more being deducted from the potential house value being bequeathed) you're only going to end up at approximately that deposit level, not considerably more than it.
If a deposit is enough then that's great. But then if its enough, we ought to be thinking about what ways a young couple nowadays can accrue a deposit without relying upon "wait for a grandparent to die" as a solution.
Oh I don't disagree with any of that. The trouble is that until that happens then inheritance or some other form of help from the older generation is the only way to go. If the Government starts coming down hard on inheritance again then expect lots more elderly to look at doing the capital release and then giving the money to their kids before they die.
Indeed - which is not necessarily a bad thing.
Either way though the cart is being put before the horse. It should be readily achievable for a young couple in full time employment to accrue a deposit and get a house through their own efforts - and if it isn't, then the system is f***ed.
A 'bank of mum and dad' (or grandma and grandpa) to assist the deposit whether that be while alive or posthumous is a nice thing to have available to help with that but nobody should be saying it is necessary to require it.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
There should be a statement of legislative competence associated with the Bill which should throw light on that issue of legal powers. It should be on the Scottish Parliament website. Any issue should have come up at an early stage of committee. I don't remember this issue coming up, but have not been following the debate in detail.
In any case, Mr Jack as Conservative SoSfS at Westminster can have tbe bill legally challenged in the SC.
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Oppositions can sit on the fence for up to six months before an election. They are the opposition after all.
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
Labour could do that.
But they have been IMO an empty vessel for so long that I think they should not do that. They should do a lot of hard thinking and come up with well-though through proposals which withstand criticism so that they really do present themselves as a serious alternative government.
At the moment it's all a bit "I wouldn't do it like that" whingeing and not much else besides. That is not enough.
Were we 1 year from an election I would agree but we are 2+ years from the next general election and I suspect the world this time next year will look very different from how it does now so actual policies now may not be the best idea.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Absolutely. But it is an example of an issue which needs addressing because women in prisons deserve as much protection as those outside.
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
Long COVID also appears less prevalent in this wave than previous:
And in a bit of international perspective, we're also doing better than some of our peers in terms of people in ICU:
Considering that people have been saying the UK has "the highest cases in Europe" since we lifted lockdown in June/July, that ICU chart is absolutely astonishing.
The UK is down with other "low case" countries like Germany etc that still (to my knowledge) have some restrictions unlike us.
While supposedly lower-case countries like France, Spain and the USA are in their own league away from us.
I really hope it can get sorted for those nations, but if people refuse vaccines I don't see how it can other than letting nature take its course.
On the 'class' discussion, what one had to do, and where one had to do it has changed over the years. It wasn't essential in days of yore to go to an actual University to do all sorts of jobs that now require a University degree.
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Oppositions can sit on the fence for up to six months before an election. They are the opposition after all.
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
Labour could do that.
But they have been IMO an empty vessel for so long that I think they should not do that. They should do a lot of hard thinking and come up with well-though through proposals which withstand criticism so that they really do present themselves as a serious alternative government.
At the moment it's all a bit "I wouldn't do it like that" whingeing and not much else besides. That is not enough.
Were we 1 year from an election I would agree but we are 2+ years from the next general election and I suspect the world this time next year will look very different from how it does now so actual policies now may not be the best idea.
Labour has a lot of baggage to get rid of and a lot of persuasion to do - not just on tax. Were I Labour leader I would certainly be starting now.
But, then you look at testing. We are testing at over 8x the level of Germany (per population), 4x Italy and almost 2x France. Not really surprising we have much higher cases.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Absolutely. But it is an example of an issue which needs addressing because women in prisons deserve as much protection as those outside.
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
If a 'biological' male decides, for whatever reason, to self-identify as female, surely they should be prepared to undergo castration? Physically!
I’m starting to wonder if Starmer’s polling team are actually quite good?
He was on the broken promises and taxing workers when people were saying that was the wrong approach. Yet that’s exactly what the polls since have said.
It also questions who the Tories were asking, if they’d ask PB they’d have got a more useful answer
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Absolutely. But it is an example of an issue which needs addressing because women in prisons deserve as much protection as those outside.
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
Very well said.
This is another area where the cart is being put before the horse too often.
If someone genuinely has gender dysphoria then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever. And if they don't have gender dysphoria and are "going through a phase" or have mental health issues then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever.
Self-ID short circuits all that. It seeks to reach the endline while removing the medical support in-between. It adds safe-guarding risks for women and others who might be abused as a result, while removing the help and support that the people concerned need. Its a lose/lose.
The only "justification" I've seen for why its 'necessary' to have self-ID is that there's a long waiting list for treatment. If that's the issue then campaign to get the waiting lists brought down and make it more of a priority for the NHS if need be - don't stuff up safeguarding, reduce support and make matters worse for everyone as an alternative.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
Which proves there is a whole heap of opportunity around the social care tax - I suspect it will be a continual issue that slowly chips away at Tory support within the working class.
Separately the administrators of Cleveland Bridge have discovered that there isn't a viable takeover offer. So that is another historic engineering firm gone in a Red Wall seat...
Graduates earning over £27,000 a year are not working class, they are middle class, mainly living in London and other big cities
There are working class graduates too! However for political analysis, there is too much focus on working class, when what will count electorally is workers, whatever their class.
If you have a degree you can never be fully working class, certainly not in terms of education and culture.
Which is it? Most people with a degree can't afford a £900k home.
AR says if you can't afford it you are not middle class. HYUFD says if you have a degree you can't be working class.
It is all nonsense.
HYUFD has his psephological strengths but so much of his dogmatic posting is just horseshit.
I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come. It's a cultural thing; where you were born, what your parents did, what your friends and family's occupations are, the school you went to, how you were brought up, how you see the world.
It's not better than being middle-class. There are aspects of the working-class culture and outlook I dislike. There are elements of middle-classness I like and have adopted. Through uni I have met and made good middle-class friends. But I am undoubtedly still, and will remain until I croak, working class.
It's not just measured in income or qualifications anymore. There's nuance there, shades of grey. Stuff that HYUFD doesn't do very well.
'I've got two degrees and a white collar job and I'm as working class as they come' no you are middle class both by education and job.
Just because you maybe working class by background does not mean you are working class now and it is patronising to those who are still working class to suggest you are
Nice dogmatic reply.
Look, I'm sure IRL you're a lovely bloke, and I don't want to get into an online slagging match with some random off the internet. Life's too short and it's a Friday and I know when it comes to stubbornness you put many mules to shame, so I don't want to get into a jaw-clenchingly irritating, ultimately futile back-and-forth with you.
But I will say that what you've written above is laughable.
On your definition of middle class then, the only people who are middle class are those with upper middle class parents, who went to private school, graduated from university and now have a professional job ie about less than 5% of the population
Err, no!
The vast majority of middle class people have parents who are nongraduates and state educated, including me. Your comment have a whiff of those Telegraph columnists who write of "ordinary second home owners" etc.
Personally, I think that the US terminology of blue collar and white collar jobs is more useful, albeit clothing fashions have changed. Class in Britain is about far more than occupation, it is as obscure, arcane and stratified as Hindu castes, and almost as confining.
Indeed. And by no means everyone who claims to be whatever 'class' has reasonably close relatives who are in the same 'class'.
And a forgotten element is that the "class" system is enforced from below.
When my eldest daughter went to school, there were 2 primary schools in the immediate catchment area. One got outstanding results - near private school levels. There was intense competition to get in. One parent was even taken to court over fraud relating to address/catchment area.
The other was a disaster area. Complete, utter.
All the well off, well educated parents sent their children to the first school. If they could get in.
As is usual in London, there are council estates scattered through the borough. One is literally next door to the school - some people there are literally on the school boundary. So they have first priority on entry...
But the poorer people send their children to the other school - almost 100% of the time. Even though it is further away, for some of them.
A few chose the good school. What was interesting was bridging the cultural divide - I made an effort to reach out to them. The mis-understandings between them and the middle class parents would make an interesting column for a newspaper, perhaps.
Anyway, their peers on the estate had tried to dissuade them from sending their children to the "posh" school.
"They're all posh there", "There's too much homework", "They are too strict on the uniform" and even variations on "It's not for the likes of us".
It was Fear Of The Other, pure and simple.
A lot comes down to the parents' own experience of school. One aspect of discussions of class that in my opinion doesn't get sufficient attention is the extent to which "working class" has become synonymous with "didn't do well at school", because of the way that education has become the primary means of achieving upwards social mobility. People whose main memories of school are being made to feel thick or being bored and disengaged are unlikely to want to push their own kids academically. It is immensely frustrating for those, like me, who would like to see more social mobility. But it's important to understand where these attitudes come from rather than simply dismissing them.
I’m starting to wonder if Starmer’s polling team are actually quite good?
He was on the broken promises and taxing workers when people were saying that was the wrong approach. Yet that’s exactly what the polls since have said.
It also questions who the Tories were asking, if they’d ask PB they’d have got a more useful answer
They’ve only gone up one point
As I highlighted before - when your enemy is making a mistake let them do it.
The only other solution is a wealth tax and that requires proper selling for people to accept it which will take time, so it's best to just keep quiet while the mistakes / your foundations are being built.
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
I’m starting to wonder if Starmer’s polling team are actually quite good?
He was on the broken promises and taxing workers when people were saying that was the wrong approach. Yet that’s exactly what the polls since have said.
It also questions who the Tories were asking, if they’d ask PB they’d have got a more useful answer
They’ve only gone up one point
Not surprised voters are leaving the Tories due to the NI rise. However, what are their alternatives?
Labour - would put taxes up by more
Greens - would put taxes up by more
Lib Dems - would put taxes up by more
Reform - who knows?
That is why the "Don't Know" has gone up so much. I'm probably in that boat. When it comes to a GE would I want one of the alternatives to get in. Probably not. That will be what Boris is hoping for. However, I think it is a big risk in the Red Wall.
Hope things get better soon, I just want to take a minute and apologise to you for personally attacking you over this new NI tax the other week, it was the heat of the moment and I realise that you've never been in favour of such inequitable redistribution from young to old and I was being an idiot. Really am very sorry about it.
I think the big advantage with Thorium is that it doesn't suffer the default potential runaway problem that Uranium does ?
That is also true of molten salt reactors (as this reactor is) using uranium, though. The advantage is that there's an awful lot of thorium about, particularly in China and India. Good discussion of the basics (including the molten salt thorium reactor - a US invention) here: https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
The reason Thorium reactors never took off is that the nuclear powers all opted for uranium because it was needed for bomb making. Once the engineering infrastructure was there, it took away any economic inventive for development.
China is now a large enough market on its own to make development of an entire industry feasible. And the economic incentives for non CO2 fuels have also, of course, improved.
But, then you look at testing. We are testing at over 8x the level of Germany (per population), 4x Italy and almost 2x France. Not really surprising we have much higher cases.
If rumours are true, we will be scaling back our testing regime soon. I would stop immediately all non-symptomatic testing (such as bi-weekly lateral flow tests etc). Reserve tests for when someone is suspected of actually having Covid-19. I suspect this is more like what is happening in other countries.
I'm not sure if other places are also doing surveys like the ONS do here. That would be revealing.
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
I don't think its fair to blame the SNP. There's no legal restrictions in England, so what are the Scots meant to be doing to make infections higher?
Its just a case that an exit wave needs to occur and places like Cornwall and the Highlands and elsewhere that had lower cases earlier in the pandemic seem to be catching up now.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
And in a bit of international perspective, we're also doing better than some of our peers in terms of people in ICU:
Yet, according to their data on cases we have the highest amongst those countries. I am very skeptical about case counting in many other countries.
With a largely vaccinated population we need to start worrying more about ICU cases and less about infections (other than they can be a forewarning of some ICU cases to follow...)
I’m starting to wonder if Starmer’s polling team are actually quite good?
He was on the broken promises and taxing workers when people were saying that was the wrong approach. Yet that’s exactly what the polls since have said.
It also questions who the Tories were asking, if they’d ask PB they’d have got a more useful answer
They’ve only gone up one point
Not surprised voters are leaving the Tories due to the NI rise. However, what are their alternatives?
Labour - would put taxes up by more
Greens - would put taxes up by more
Lib Dems - would put taxes up by more
Reform - who knows?
That is why the "Don't Know" has gone up so much. I'm probably in that boat. When it comes to a GE would I want one of the alternatives to get in. Probably not. That will be what Boris is hoping for. However, I think it is a big risk in the Red Wall.
He seems to be assuming that being Labour Lite is how to hold the red wall, and then the south can go **** themselves as there's no alternative as you set out. Starting to wish his run in with covid last year had prompted a long and fulfilling retirement for him.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Absolutely. But it is an example of an issue which needs addressing because women in prisons deserve as much protection as those outside.
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
If a 'biological' male decides, for whatever reason, to self-identify as female, surely they should be prepared to undergo castration? Physically!
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
I don't think its fair to blame the SNP. There's no legal restrictions in England, so what are the Scots meant to be doing to make infections higher?
Its just a case that an exit wave needs to occur and places like Cornwall and the Highlands and elsewhere that had lower cases earlier in the pandemic seem to be catching up now.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
They claimed credit on the way up so they should get a kick on the way down, even if it's rubbish both ways round. And people responsible for vaccine passports deserve every attack they receive.
So Tories taking a hit in London and the South. They really are an ungrateful bunch of...
Movement then from Tories and Labour to the LDs and ReformUK in London, from the Tories to Labour and the LDs in the South, from Labour to the Tories and ReformUK in the Midlands and Wales and from the Tories and Greens to Labour in the North. So a different pattern across the country. The Tories actually up in the Midlands despite losses elsewhere.
In Scotland some further movement from Labour to the SNP
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
I don't think its fair to blame the SNP. There's no legal restrictions in England, so what are the Scots meant to be doing to make infections higher?
Its just a case that an exit wave needs to occur and places like Cornwall and the Highlands and elsewhere that had lower cases earlier in the pandemic seem to be catching up now.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
They claimed credit on the way up so they should get a kick on the way down, even if it's rubbish both ways round. And people responsible for vaccine passports deserve every attack they receive.
Don't worry, they'll just blame it on English tourists. It's never the SNP's fault.
That's good news for Labour - narrowing the gap to 4pp in a poll carried out 3-5 September, as you say well before the tax rise. Labour actually 1 point higher than in yesterday's YouGov. It does hint that there are other factors at play as well as this week's events.
I see that Channel 4 are holding a no whites allowed day. A beautiful moment for racial equality and desegregation.
Thank god it's getting sold.
Really? How is that supposed to help anything? I aspire to a colour blind society.
You've obviously not been through any recent corporate equality training, where you'll be told that colour blind approaches are actually just tools to maintain white dominance in society. The best is when you're invited to engage but you have a mortgage to pay.
It's akin to the stupid language about 'punching up' which exempts certain groups from ridicule or harm while making not merely acceptable but even positive to hit approved groups (the wealthy, Jews, kulaks etc).
I also wonder if what Starmer needs going into Conference is momentum (no not that one) and he’s now got a bit of that off the Tory idiocy.
I really think it’s entirely possible this is where Labour starts to get larger, sustained poll leads.
Swallows and summer and all that.
The wheels haven't fallen off the Conservatives' wagon yet, but the lug nuts are coming loose.
It all rather depends on what Labour's proposals on tax are going to be.
Will they tax more than the Tories? Who will they tax if so?
Will they reverse these changes? If so, how will they pay for the NHS and social care and other stuff?
Will they reduce taxes? Again, what will that mean for public spending?
It is easy to criticise what the Tories are proposing. But - unless I have missed this - I have no idea what Labour's broad proposals are.
Labour have always proposed taxing and spending more. So despite what the Tories have done it may still be possible for them to say at the next GE that they are a lower tax party than Labour.
If Labour does decide to outflank them on that, it will be quite the change. It could happen of course - especially if it is done as part of a shift in the burden of taxation.
But 2 questions:-
1.What in Starmer's career so far suggests that he has the boldness to make such a change? 2. Will he take his party with him?
I am also a little unclear about what the opponents of this Tory policy want.
Would it be OK if the wealthy / pensioners were also taxed ie the tax burden rises on everyone and more on the wealthy?
Or do they want this tax rise to be reversed? In which case we're back to asking how the NHS, social care and much else besides is going to be paid for?
Oppositions can sit on the fence for up to six months before an election. They are the opposition after all.
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
Labour could do that.
But they have been IMO an empty vessel for so long that I think they should not do that. They should do a lot of hard thinking and come up with well-though through proposals which withstand criticism so that they really do present themselves as a serious alternative government.
At the moment it's all a bit "I wouldn't do it like that" whingeing and not much else besides. That is not enough.
Were we 1 year from an election I would agree but we are 2+ years from the next general election and I suspect the world this time next year will look very different from how it does now so actual policies now may not be the best idea.
Labour has a lot of baggage to get rid of and a lot of persuasion to do - not just on tax. Were I Labour leader I would certainly be starting now.
It is far too complacent.
As are the Tories.
I agree - but now the new tax had been legislated into law, it's quite a big tangle to unpick, so it can't be done quickly. An alternative policy needs to look both at the tax side, and also the fundamental arrangements for social care. At the moment the system of largely private provision, funded by individuals paying a premium (c.40%), and Local Authorities, through a bunch of arcane rules, is a mess (as anyone who has had, for example, any involvement with the Continuing Healthcare Decision Support Tool will appreciate).
Broadly, I think Labour's line is going to be that we do indeed need to raise money for "the Tories' NHS backlog" but it should come from CGT and other things like higher-rate income tax, multinationals and new higher-rate council tax bands, with a delphic nod towards wealth tax. I don't think it's wise to be more specific two years out from an election with the world economy in turmoil, but that will be the direction of travel.
Labour could introduce higher rate council tax bands in Wales right now. Council tax is a devolved matter.
If Labour were serious ...
In trying it out in Wales, Labour would learn something about the pitfalls of its implementation.
My take on all this is Tony Blair came to power in 1997 with a promise to fix social care.
Little actually happened over the next 25 years.
Boris has tried to do something (albeit in a somewhat dishonest way).
He hasn't fixed social care (because it is more than one problem & some of it is just unfixable), but he has tried to implement some of Dilnott.
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
Main difference to that poll from Yougov is there is no Con to RefUK switching and fewer DKs. Hence the Tories are on 40% with ComRes but only 33% with Yougov despite Labour being only 1% up on Yougov with Comres and the LDs 1% down (though Comres also have the Greens significantly lower than Yougov)
That's good news for Labour - narrowing the gap to 4pp in a poll carried out 3-5 September, as you say well before the tax rise. Labour actually 1 point higher than in yesterday's YouGov. It does hint that there are other factors at play as well as this week's events.
Yes but the movement seems to be between left parties and to D/K for the conservatives
I see that Channel 4 are holding a no whites allowed day. A beautiful moment for racial equality and desegregation.
Thank god it's getting sold.
Really? How is that supposed to help anything? I aspire to a colour blind society.
You've obviously not been through any recent corporate equality training, where you'll be told that colour blind approaches are actually just tools to maintain white dominance in society. The best is when you're invited to engage but you have a mortgage to pay.
I suspect much of that approach is merely a tool to keep training providers on the gravy train. Just keep redefining the problem.
Main difference to that poll from Yougov is there is no Con to RefUK switching and fewer DKs. Hence the Tories are on 40% with ComRes but only 33% with Yougov despite Labour being only 1% up on Yougov with Comres and the LDs 1% down (though Comres also have the Greens significantly lower than Yougov)
“Qantas will have a policy that internationally we will only carry vaccinated passengers,” said Joyce when asked about future policy plans. “Because we think that’s going to be one of the requirements to show you are flying safe, and to get them into those countries.”
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
I don't think its fair to blame the SNP. There's no legal restrictions in England, so what are the Scots meant to be doing to make infections higher?
Its just a case that an exit wave needs to occur and places like Cornwall and the Highlands and elsewhere that had lower cases earlier in the pandemic seem to be catching up now.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
They claimed credit on the way up so they should get a kick on the way down, even if it's rubbish both ways round. And people responsible for vaccine passports deserve every attack they receive.
That's fair.
And I suppose they've not dropped all restrictions and are still pratting around with masks too so they should be having lower cases you'd think. Except of course for them being by this stage of the pandemic an inconvenient and stupid irrelevance.
We had our holiday in August at Centreparcs in Cumbria and I don't believe I saw a single mask the entire time we were there, which was great. Who goes to a holiday resort, once its no longer required, where you're either outdoors or in a swimming centre etc in order to wear a facemask? If you're that bothered, don't go.
But on the Facebook page the week we went there was a flame war going on with someone from Scotland asking whether there was "full compliance" with wearing masks, since they're required in Scotland apparently and she knew they weren't in England but wanted to make sure they were worn before she goes. With then anger and outrage that the answer coming back was no, people aren't wearing masks.
If you don't want to go anywhere where people aren't wearing masks, maybe don't book a holiday at a holiday resort in a nation that's no longer requiring people to wear a mask. Who the heck goes to a holiday resort with the intention of masking up? (Maybe don't answer that if perverted ~ Ed)
Cases flat as a pancake and yet Culture Sec thinks we desperately need vaccine passports from end of this month.
It's depressing, on this and NI, how far these 'Conservatives' are willing to schill for positions they can't possibly hold themselves just for a ministerial car or the hope of being able to carry someone's bag for them.
I see that Channel 4 are holding a no whites allowed day. A beautiful moment for racial equality and desegregation.
Thank god it's getting sold.
Really? How is that supposed to help anything? I aspire to a colour blind society.
You've obviously not been through any recent corporate equality training, where you'll be told that colour blind approaches are actually just tools to maintain white dominance in society. The best is when you're invited to engage but you have a mortgage to pay.
Sadly I have been through ALL the training as required by my Uni.
Cases flat as a pancake and yet Culture Sec thinks we desperately need vaccine passports from end of this month.
To be fair cases flat in summer, while outside, and with schools closed.
I still don't think we need vaccine passports, but the risk was always going to be winter. Which is why its moronic to wear masks or have mitigations now - its better if the virus is going to spread that it spreads now than in December.
Main difference to that poll from Yougov is there is no Con to RefUK switching and fewer DKs. Hence the Tories are on 40% with ComRes but only 33% with Yougov despite Labour being only 1% up on Yougov with Comres and the LDs 1% down (though Comres also have the Greens significantly lower than Yougov)
The main difference is it was before the tax rise
The tax rise has been reported to be coming in the press and media for over a week.
The main difference is Yougov have RefUK and the Greens far higher than other pollsters as well as DKs higher too, we wait to see if that is replicated in other pollsters post NI rise and triple lock freeze.
If it is then based on Comres pre rise and freeze and Yougov after the main movement we would see would be pensioners moving from Tory to RefUK or DK after the triple lock freeze
ONS infection survey has finally caught up with the SNP shit-show, nearly double the English rate and growing rapidly so the conspiracy theories that higher cases was due to better testing can be put to bed.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
On the polling. If (and that's a big if as so early) this latest poll with lead for Lab is down to the NI increase then that possibly shows that even if people in focus groups tell you they support an idea they might not actually.
Might we see a similar hit when vaccine passports are introduced?
Seems popular with public, but will they be when reality hits.
NICOLA Sturgeon has flatly dismissed criticism of her controversial gender reforms as “not valid” just days after being accused of ignoring women’s concerns.
The First Minister urged people to focus on “real threats” to women’s safety and women’s rights, not moves to help trans people change their gender in the eyes of the law.
However Ms Sturgeon also suggested that, with some SNP ministers uneasy about the change, there could be a free vote at Holyrood on it, rather than a whipped one.
From the crazy power addicted dictator , not a chance.
Ms Sturgeon has a legal issue on her hands with her proposal - whether she has the ability to make the changes she apparently wants.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
My one comment would be that you are looking at a particular subset of "trans"women there who may be very different to transwomen found in the general population.
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Absolutely. But it is an example of an issue which needs addressing because women in prisons deserve as much protection as those outside.
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
Very well said.
This is another area where the cart is being put before the horse too often.
If someone genuinely has gender dysphoria then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever. And if they don't have gender dysphoria and are "going through a phase" or have mental health issues then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever.
Self-ID short circuits all that. It seeks to reach the endline while removing the medical support in-between. It adds safe-guarding risks for women and others who might be abused as a result, while removing the help and support that the people concerned need. Its a lose/lose.
The only "justification" I've seen for why its 'necessary' to have self-ID is that there's a long waiting list for treatment. If that's the issue then campaign to get the waiting lists brought down and make it more of a priority for the NHS if need be - don't stuff up safeguarding, reduce support and make matters worse for everyone as an alternative.
I suppose that if there were special sports events for different categories of trans people which might even lead to different changing rooms, prisons, etc in wider society also, that would be deemed as treating people as somehow "lesser" women/men.
I genuinely don't know what those affected would think.
Cases flat as a pancake and yet Culture Sec thinks we desperately need vaccine passports from end of this month.
To be fair cases flat in summer, while outside, and with schools closed.
I still don't think we need vaccine passports, but the risk was always going to be winter. Which is why its moronic to wear masks or have mitigations now - its better if the virus is going to spread that it spreads now than in December.
Comments
Plus of course there's a purely mechanistic effect at work: if the Tories lose 10% of their support in any age group that's going to show up as a bigger swing where they have 60% of the age group voting for them, versus one where they only get 15% of that age group's votes.
Starmer now has a big chance to reconfigure the centre left; he needs both a clear alternative policy and not waffle (I agree with Cyclefree) and to stop the centre left vote splitting.
I don't think there will be a long term drift to a right wing Tory alternative this time. Boris has united the centre right; SKS has to do the same on the centre left.
As a percentage of votes retained those numbers look like:
18-24s 64%
25-49s 90%
50-64s 87%
Over 65s 85%
From @ECDC_EU and @OurWorldInData.
https://twitter.com/SteveCicala/status/1430919189536120843?s=20
Edit: Old Trafford has the first T20I on July 1st - I don't know how soon after that the groundsman could have a Test strip prepared, but I think 4th-8th July is a decent bet. Only directly clashes with the final T20I at the Ageas Bowl on day 3, with the second T20I and the first ODI on the days immediately before and after.
So still could be narrative of poor young paying so rich old get richer
It clear that the current NHS/ Social Care plans outlined this week will barely scratch the surface. Tax rises are inevitable, irrespective of party in government. The opposition parties can pick and choose the popular and unpopular bits of the Government's proposals and sell them accordingly- like Osborne sold austerity.
So what might be less unpopular than a convoluted NI rise? I'd start with tax avoiding multi national corporations. If someone profitable trades on our turf they pay our taxes.
English cricket’s relationship with India faces a potential fork in the road following an informal request to move the fifth Test in September to the start of the series – or even cancel it altogether – in order to complete the Indian Premier League.
The IPL was suspended on 4 May amid an outbreak of Covid-19 among the franchises. But with the 31 IPL games still to be played worth an estimated £200m in broadcast money to the Board of Control for Cricket in India, the motivation to complete the 2021 season is obvious.
The T20 World Cup starting in mid‑October means any restarted IPL campaign – most likely held in the United Arab Emirates – would have to come first. But India’s five‑Test series in England does not finish until 14 September in Manchester, which would disrupt such a plan.
While the England and Wales Cricket Board insists no “official” request has been made, one scenario understood to have been floated in talks with the BCCI is to move the fifth Test forward to the end of July, before the scheduled first Test at Trent Bridge starting on 4 August.
https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/20/england-under-pressure-to-reschedule-or-cancel-fifth-test-against-india
Obviously I wasn't voting Tory anyway, but less political types who absent-mindedly vote Tory out of habit may well shift to "don't know" or Reform.
Loss of about 1 in 6 over 65s, one in 8 50-64s, one in 10 25-49s.
Equal opportunities are a reserved matter - specifically, the Equal Pay Act 1970 and the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. There is an exception to this, namely, the encouragement of "equal opportunities" by Holyrood.
But “Equal opportunities” in the relevant legislation has been defined as -
"the prevention, elimination or regulation of discrimination between persons on grounds of sex or marital status, on racial grounds, or on grounds of disability, age, sexual orientation, language or social origin, or of other personal attributes, including beliefs or opinions, such as religious beliefs or political opinions."
This creates 2 problems for Ms Sturgeon: permitting self-ID does not come within this exception. Second, changing the definition of what it means to be a "woman" undermines and will affect the sex-based rights and sex-based definitions contained in the Equal Pay and Sex Discrimination Acts, which are reserved to Westminster. So she may not have the legal power to do what she wants to do.
The other issue is a practical one. She claims to want to protect women's safety and rights. This statistic from the Ministry of Justice is an interesting one.
The % of male prisoners in the UK general male population who have been convicted of sex offences is 19%. Amongst those self-ID'd as transwomen the % is 48%.
That is a striking difference. Either it means that men identifying as women are a much more likely to be sex offenders, in which case self-ID is pretty dangerous for women. The former seems unlikely. There is little other evidence to suggest that those who genuinely are transwomen ie have gender dysphoria are more likely to be sex offenders.
Or it suggests that men who attack women are abusing the system and will abuse any further loopholes or opportunities which are created. If so, then how are women's protections to be maintained?
This is one of the many concerns that women in Scotland have. And one reason why they have been demonstrating outside Holyrood, something which Sturgeon now wants to turn into a criminal offence. Sturgeon would do better to listen to the concerns of women rather than shout "shame" at them for raising them.
Reform UK: 5% (+2)
Con: 33% (-5 from 2-3 Sep)
Lib Dem: 10% (+2)
SNP: 5% (n/c)
Lab: 35% (+1)
Green: 9% (-1)
For Labour to improve they need to pull votes from both the LDs and the Greens and that is going to be hard to do unless they accept that any attempt to recover the Green / Corbyn voters will lose similar numbers from the middle ground.
Region, London, Rest of South, Midlands/Wales, North, Scotland
Con, -9, -10, 2, -2, 0
Lab, -4, 6, -4, 5, -2
Lib Dem, 6, 4, 1, 0, 1
SNP, 1, 0, -1, 0, 5
Plaid Cymru, 0, 0, -2, 0, 0
Reform UK, 4, 1, 3, 2, -1
Green, 2, 0, 2, -4, -2
Other, 1, 1, -2, -1, -1
So Tories taking a hit in London and the South. They really are an ungrateful bunch of...
It all seems a bit of a stunt and very hard to work out.
Can you imagine Britain doing something similar for an actor or, indeed, anyone in the arts?
China prepares to test thorium-fuelled nuclear reactor
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02459-w
Today, we shared positive pre-clinical data demonstrating our ability to combine 6 mRNAs against 3 different respiratory viruses in 1 vaccine: COVID-19 booster + Flu booster + RSV booster.
https://twitter.com/moderna_tx/status/1435978825377136641
Now I have zero evidence to back that up but that 48% / 19% difference would seem to imply something else is going on here.
Daily Mail has a £5 off £25 spend at LIDL
First installment covered
Broadly, I think Labour's line is going to be that we do indeed need to raise money for "the Tories' NHS backlog" but it should come from CGT and other things like higher-rate income tax, multinationals and new higher-rate council tax bands, with a delphic nod towards wealth tax. I don't think it's wise to be more specific two years out from an election with the world economy in turmoil, but that will be the direction of travel.
But they have been IMO an empty vessel for so long that I think they should not do that. They should do a lot of hard thinking and come up with well-though through proposals which withstand criticism so that they really do present themselves as a serious alternative government.
At the moment it's all a bit "I wouldn't do it like that" whingeing and not much else besides. That is not enough.
Either way though the cart is being put before the horse. It should be readily achievable for a young couple in full time employment to accrue a deposit and get a house through their own efforts - and if it isn't, then the system is f***ed.
A 'bank of mum and dad' (or grandma and grandpa) to assist the deposit whether that be while alive or posthumous is a nice thing to have available to help with that but nobody should be saying it is necessary to require it.
Life a bit tough at the moment. Hanging on.
Stay well.
In any case, Mr Jack as Conservative SoSfS at Westminster can have tbe bill legally challenged in the SC.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERHPwt9ExL8
Cases in most regions flat, except for Scotland:
Long COVID also appears less prevalent in this wave than previous:
And in a bit of international perspective, we're also doing better than some of our peers in terms of people in ICU:
Plus it raises an obvious concern: if male sex offenders abuse self-ID to get themselves into a woman's prison (and remember there have been cases of those doing so then attacking and raping women in prisons), why wouldn't they do so in order to get access to women outside prison?
The one thing we know about sex offenders is that they are very canny at using and abusing any and every loophole and opportunity to commit their crimes. A government sensitive to the protection of women and girls would be very cautious about increasing those opportunities. In particular, there is a very real clash between safeguarding policy - which is based on the precautionary principle - and permitting self-ID with no independent gatekeeping. Self-ID drives a coach and horses through any safeguarding policy, especially in schools or in other institutions with vulnerable women.
The UK is down with other "low case" countries like Germany etc that still (to my knowledge) have some restrictions unlike us.
While supposedly lower-case countries like France, Spain and the USA are in their own league away from us.
I really hope it can get sorted for those nations, but if people refuse vaccines I don't see how it can other than letting nature take its course.
Nice clip of Belmondo doing his own stunts. The fall from the dumper truck looks rather dangerous.
https://twitter.com/DeclouxJ/status/1434905848682266630
It is far too complacent.
As are the Tories.
Latest results from our #COVID19 Infection Survey show a mixed picture across the UK.
In the week ending 3 Sept 2021, infection rates
- remained level in England
- increased in Wales and Scotland.
In Northern Ireland the trend was uncertain http://ow.ly/mmHh50G7C4Z
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1436283547191496706?s=20
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-05-29..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Confirmed+cases&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ESP
But, then you look at testing. We are testing at over 8x the level of Germany (per population), 4x Italy and almost 2x France. Not really surprising we have much higher cases.
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-05-29..latest&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=Tests&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=USA~GBR~DEU~ITA~FRA~ESP
That might well sort out the men from .......
Thank god it's getting sold.
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/coronaviruscovid19infectionsurveypilot/10september2021
Before tax rise
This is another area where the cart is being put before the horse too often.
If someone genuinely has gender dysphoria then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever. And if they don't have gender dysphoria and are "going through a phase" or have mental health issues then they should get all the help and support they need, whether that be counselling, followed by treatment or whatever.
Self-ID short circuits all that. It seeks to reach the endline while removing the medical support in-between. It adds safe-guarding risks for women and others who might be abused as a result, while removing the help and support that the people concerned need. Its a lose/lose.
The only "justification" I've seen for why its 'necessary' to have self-ID is that there's a long waiting list for treatment. If that's the issue then campaign to get the waiting lists brought down and make it more of a priority for the NHS if need be - don't stuff up safeguarding, reduce support and make matters worse for everyone as an alternative.
"Eleven transgender inmates sexually assaulted in male prisons last year"
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-52748117
It is immensely frustrating for those, like me, who would like to see more social mobility. But it's important to understand where these attitudes come from rather than simply dismissing them.
The only other solution is a wealth tax and that requires proper selling for people to accept it which will take time, so it's best to just keep quiet while the mistakes / your foundations are being built.
- Labour - would put taxes up by more
- Greens - would put taxes up by more
- Lib Dems - would put taxes up by more
- Reform - who knows?
That is why the "Don't Know" has gone up so much. I'm probably in that boat. When it comes to a GE would I want one of the alternatives to get in. Probably not. That will be what Boris is hoping for. However, I think it is a big risk in the Red Wall.Please feel free to ignore if you are so wealthy that the NI hit barely touches the sides.
I bought 3 Daily Mails yesterday
The advantage is that there's an awful lot of thorium about, particularly in China and India.
Good discussion of the basics (including the molten salt thorium reactor - a US invention) here:
https://whatisnuclear.com/thorium.html
The reason Thorium reactors never took off is that the nuclear powers all opted for uranium because it was needed for bomb making. Once the engineering infrastructure was there, it took away any economic inventive for development.
China is now a large enough market on its own to make development of an entire industry feasible. And the economic incentives for non CO2 fuels have also, of course, improved.
I'm not sure if other places are also doing surveys like the ONS do here. That would be revealing.
Its just a case that an exit wave needs to occur and places like Cornwall and the Highlands and elsewhere that had lower cases earlier in the pandemic seem to be catching up now.
No idea what's going on in Glasgow though. That's been high throughout and is high now so seems odd.
In Scotland some further movement from Labour to the SNP
Britain Elects
@BritainElects
·
3m
Westminster voting intention:
CON: 40% (-)
LAB: 36% (+2)
LDEM: 9% (-1)
GRN: 4% (-1)
via
@SavantaComRes
, 03 - 05 Sep
Chgs. w/ 29 Aug
It's akin to the stupid language about 'punching up' which exempts certain groups from ridicule or harm while making not merely acceptable but even positive to hit approved groups (the wealthy, Jews, kulaks etc).
An alternative policy needs to look both at the tax side, and also the fundamental arrangements for social care.
At the moment the system of largely private provision, funded by individuals paying a premium (c.40%), and Local Authorities, through a bunch of arcane rules, is a mess (as anyone who has had, for example, any involvement with the Continuing Healthcare Decision Support Tool will appreciate).
If Labour were serious ...
In trying it out in Wales, Labour would learn something about the pitfalls of its implementation.
My take on all this is Tony Blair came to power in 1997 with a promise to fix social care.
Little actually happened over the next 25 years.
Boris has tried to do something (albeit in a somewhat dishonest way).
He hasn't fixed social care (because it is more than one problem & some of it is just unfixable), but he has tried to implement some of Dilnott.
Estimated number of people with covid 19 in the most recent weeks
England 1 in 70
Scotland 1 in 45
Wales 1 in 65
N Ireland 1 in 60
Scotland not looking good
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/da1096ca-11af-11ec-86b8-9dcf48a101ba?shareToken=e2995c7c852d19434c8cd1943a0bd974
The next few weeks polls will be interesting
https://www.flyertalk.com/articles/qantas-to-require-covid-19-vaccination-for-international-travel.html
And I suppose they've not dropped all restrictions and are still pratting around with masks too so they should be having lower cases you'd think. Except of course for them being by this stage of the pandemic an inconvenient and stupid irrelevance.
We had our holiday in August at Centreparcs in Cumbria and I don't believe I saw a single mask the entire time we were there, which was great. Who goes to a holiday resort, once its no longer required, where you're either outdoors or in a swimming centre etc in order to wear a facemask? If you're that bothered, don't go.
But on the Facebook page the week we went there was a flame war going on with someone from Scotland asking whether there was "full compliance" with wearing masks, since they're required in Scotland apparently and she knew they weren't in England but wanted to make sure they were worn before she goes. With then anger and outrage that the answer coming back was no, people aren't wearing masks.
If you don't want to go anywhere where people aren't wearing masks, maybe don't book a holiday at a holiday resort in a nation that's no longer requiring people to wear a mask. Who the heck goes to a holiday resort with the intention of masking up? (Maybe don't answer that if perverted ~ Ed)
I still don't think we need vaccine passports, but the risk was always going to be winter. Which is why its moronic to wear masks or have mitigations now - its better if the virus is going to spread that it spreads now than in December.
The main difference is Yougov have RefUK and the Greens far higher than other pollsters as well as DKs higher too, we wait to see if that is replicated in other pollsters post NI rise and triple lock freeze.
If it is then based on Comres pre rise and freeze and Yougov after the main movement we would see would be pensioners moving from Tory to RefUK or DK after the triple lock freeze
Might we see a similar hit when vaccine passports are introduced?
Seems popular with public, but will they be when reality hits.
I genuinely don't know what those affected would think.
Gee, thanks.