Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Mr. Sandpit, the 'child migrants' from Calais being suspiciously adult in appearance and then having screens put up so their wrinkled visages could no longer be seen didn't exactly enhance public trust in such matters (few years ago now).
As for student loans, I am assured Labour intends to keep it
I would suggest government covers the loan for the first year and incentivises universities to offer 2 year courses with the same amount of learning, but much shorter breaks as a compromise.
Re the thread header, I followed @MikeSmithson tip on LDs in C&A and backed Labour in B&S, but not for much money - the winnings only covered what I lost backing Labour in Hartlepool
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
Mr. Sandpit, the 'child migrants' from Calais being suspiciously adult in appearance and then having screens put up so their wrinkled visages could no longer be seen didn't exactly enhance public trust in such matters (few years ago now).
Indeed. Legal immigration, illegal immigration and asylum are three very different subjects, which actually don’t overlap much in practice.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
We can start with the hand car wash sector.
Which will have the added benefit of freeing up land.
Mr. Sandpit, the 'child migrants' from Calais being suspiciously adult in appearance and then having screens put up so their wrinkled visages could no longer be seen didn't exactly enhance public trust in such matters (few years ago now).
But it is medically impossible to test the ages of people to find out if they are 15 or 21. Or it require a dangerous medical procedures. or its racist.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Imagine she had lost, and a right winger was on here banging on about how she was wearing Romania’s colours anyway
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
I've just realised. If we have an Election in May '23 as seems likely, then the social care 'fix' will not even have started. It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
why do you think 2023 for the next election rather than 2024?
because things will look good then?
or things starting to deteriorate so better to go sooner than later?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
Calling the black man a white supremacist, from a white person wearing a gorilla mask, is a pretty good indication of how far in the gutter American politics is right now.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
Ditto for takeaways, barbers and 5to8 convenience shops.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
More expensive coffees. Yay!
Surely a visit to a coffee shop for a cup of over-priced coffee and an extortionately-priced slice of plastic-wrapped cake is a bit of a luxury, not a staple?
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
Precisely. The SNP (whatever they say to the contrary) don't care if the Tories are in Downing Street or if Labour are.
Their sole priority is to get an independent Scotland.
If Labour in Downing Street makes it easier to get an independent Scotland, that's a reason for them to facilitate a Labour PM entering if they're kingmakers. If it doesn't, they've no reason to do so.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Nippy doesn't want it.
Right now she has all the glory, and none of the pain of actually doing it.
Bit like BoZo. Winning the referendum was not what he wanted.
It just isn't true. The SNP exist for independence. If they didn't want it the easiest thing in the world would be to step back now and say "we can't have it". No, instead it is "we want it and you will give it".
So I believe you are wrong for three reasons. One - the SNP are pressing ahead with the referendum bid Two - the SNP actually believe it the long term aim and benefits Three - the SNP know that if there is no independence coming other parties are available. Let a few years slip past, have more questions asked about murk in the SNP and the idea of Alba taking over isn't daft.
Hmmm
One: She has supposedly been pressing on for 7 years without being one inch closer, running out of carrots Two: SNP may but Nippy and leadership not so much , they would be swept away and lose their cushy numbers, she is power crazy Three: She will hang on as long as she can , court cases may force that , and hope to get plum job elsewhere in Europe , UN , etc. Murk will drip out or explode in court cases. They cannot even hold a conference now as they dare not let ordinary members vote, only a matter of time.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
More expensive coffees. Yay!
Locally the price of a cup of coffee can vary from about 69p to about £3.59 depending upon where you visit as it stands.
If 10p per cup goes to ensuring baristas have a better standard of living, I can live with that. Can't you?
On topic I expect a reduced conservative majority but I would not bet on any outcome for GE24
I understand that the CMOs have agreed that the booster jabs will commence in the order to those first vaccinated, as the vaccine is good for at least 6 months so those vaccinated later will receive their booster later
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
It also leads to replacement of labour with capital, so, as baristas become more expensive, coffee shops use machines rather than people to make the coffees. This increases productivity, a metric which has been declining in recent years thanks to a increased supply of unskilled labour.
See also car washes, which were almost all machines until the price of labour dropped significantly.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
More expensive coffees. Yay!
Surely a visit to a coffee shop for a cup of over-priced coffee and an extortionately-priced slice of plastic-wrapped cake is a bit of a luxury, not a staple?
"Brexit: more staples, less luxury" wouldn't have been a great slogan. I don't get the point of coffee shops though, definitely not a luxury for me, but I'd expect other parts of hospitality get equally hit and that will be a shame.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
The jingobells need to labour every scrap they can
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
More expensive coffees. Yay!
Surely a visit to a coffee shop for a cup of over-priced coffee and an extortionately-priced slice of plastic-wrapped cake is a bit of a luxury, not a staple?
You'd struggle to use it to join two pieces of paper together, certainly.
I agree with the consensus somewhat boringly. It is very unlikely that the Tories lose a majority of 80 in a single election. It is even more unlikely that they lose what is going to be closer to a majority of 90+ following the boundary changes. Starmer is boring and totally lacking in ideas. He is completely relying upon this government self destructing and picking up the pieces by default. This is not impossible but very much odds against.
When Blair was dominant we had a Labour government implementing some pretty Toryish ideas such as public sector reform as well as some more centrist ones. It left the Tories nowhere to go but to howl at the moon about minority interests. Now we have a Tory government implementing Labour ideas such as higher taxes and higher public spending. How does Labour defeat that? Some Tories are disillusioned as we see somewhat disproportionately on these threads but Boris is running a centrist administration with strands for different folks. He is going to be almost impossible to beat short of the wheels coming off in a massive way.
The problem for the Tories is that Boris hasn't a fucking clue how to actually deliver things. The debacle over the tax rise for social care that doesn't give a penny to social care and thus fucks further the NHS being a prime example.
On paper they absolutely should win again. Big majority, broad base, ineffective opposition. And yet people now expect delivery of the promises they backed. Boris and the clown car have no idea how to do this, people get quickly bored of empty rhetoric even when they used to like the speaker, it can go south and quickly.
Unless of course the inevitable happens. The Tories are very good at removing the leader when they are the problem. The Tory government adopting many labour policies absolutely could be a route to another 10 years, but not if they are seen as incompetent and uncaring. The Coffey gaffe yesterday does them no favours. But switch the leader? Then I'd anticipate isam's bet winning.
There's a very clear pattern with Boris Johnson when it comes to delivering on things.
When he appoints someone capable, provides them with money, authority and support, then delivery is very good against British political standards. In my view this has happened precisely twice: with cycling infrastructure in London (Andrew Gilligan) and with the early stages of the vaccination programme (Kate Bingham). Otherwise, it appears to be catastrophically poor.
If Johnson were able to find a third person, equal to the task of levelling up the North, or fixing social care, then I think he would confound expectations again. Free piece of advice: that person is not Dido Harding.
I've just realised. If we have an Election in May '23 as seems likely, then the social care 'fix' will not even have started. It starts in October 2023.
Johnson will have the perfect excuse as to why social care is still shit if it comes up on the campaign trail during which of course anyway he will avoid discussing any serious issue anyway.
why do you think 2023 for the next election rather than 2024?
because things will look good then?
or things starting to deteriorate so better to go sooner than later?
Gives the government more choice over the date. Aim for 2023 and if things are bad you can delay. If you aim for 2024 and things are bad, tough luck.
I think for the tories to be in danger of losing power they would have to drop to 310 seats or less. If they had at least 315 seats they would still carry on and the DUP would have to lump it.
I think it is around 50/50 whether the tories have a majority at the next GE but less than 50/50 chance that they'll lose power.
I'd see them at about 320 seats or so, just shy of a majority but easily able to carry on.
Have we discussed whether as was said over the weekend, BoJo intends to make 2024 into another Brexit election? Is this a good idea?
Of course he will. I think it will play well for him electorally.
The Tories will have a very clear position: they delivered Brexit, they will defend it and Britain's interests.
I might think that's cobblers, and we're unnecessarily inflicting economic self-harm, but as a political story it works.
Labour will try and sell a position of making all the Brexit problems go away by being more pragmatic and less ideological about the implementation, but I think they'll get tripped up on the question of whether they'd rejoin the single market.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Nippy doesn't want it.
Right now she has all the glory, and none of the pain of actually doing it.
Bit like BoZo. Winning the referendum was not what he wanted.
It just isn't true. The SNP exist for independence. If they didn't want it the easiest thing in the world would be to step back now and say "we can't have it". No, instead it is "we want it and you will give it".
So I believe you are wrong for three reasons. One - the SNP are pressing ahead with the referendum bid Two - the SNP actually believe it the long term aim and benefits Three - the SNP know that if there is no independence coming other parties are available. Let a few years slip past, have more questions asked about murk in the SNP and the idea of Alba taking over isn't daft.
Hmmm
One: She has supposedly been pressing on for 7 years without being one inch closer, running out of carrots Two: SNP may but Nippy and leadership not so much , they would be swept away and lose their cushy numbers, she is power crazy Three: She will hang on as long as she can , court cases may force that , and hope to get plum job elsewhere in Europe , UN , etc. Murk will drip out or explode in court cases. They cannot even hold a conference now as they dare not let ordinary members vote, only a matter of time.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of Sturgeon's time at the reins (reigning at the reins?), I think most top politicians in a democracy have a certain shelf-life before events start getting to them. ~Seven years is when the signs of the end starting showing for Thatcher and Blair, and they were deposed at ten years. It might be worse for Sturgeon, as she was deputy FM for (fx checks) seven years before that. Fourteen years at, or beside, the top, is quite an achievement. But has she gone stale?
Merkel is perhaps an exception to the rule - 16 years. Quite an achievement.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
Precisely. The SNP (whatever they say to the contrary) don't care if the Tories are in Downing Street or if Labour are.
Their sole priority is to get an independent Scotland.
If Labour in Downing Street makes it easier to get an independent Scotland, that's a reason for them to facilitate a Labour PM entering if they're kingmakers. If it doesn't, they've no reason to do so.
One of the reasons for the SNP currently being so strong in Scotland is that they've wrested the anti-Tory mantle from Labour.
If there's a hung Parliament and the SNP don't support Labour, precipitating a general election that could lead to a Tory government - then that's Labour's best chance of winning back voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
However if the SNP do refuse to vote down a Tory government that has won most seats but not a majority, then obviously their Scottish marginal seats in the central belt would see a quicker Labour revival than Lazarus.
If Labour won most seats it would be less of an issue as Starmer could become PM without needing SNP support as he would still have more seats than the Tories
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
That’s why people who hate Boris are trying to emphasise her Romanian-ness. This can’t be allowed to reflect well on the government. It probably will though, it’s hard to make the case that immigrants are despised when the nation are cheering them
She identifies as British and was born on Canada.
Unless she self-identifies as Romanian, anyone who calls her that is being racist.
Its no different to saying that Priti Patel is Ugandan.
Rationally, yes. But we all know that the rules of logic don't apply when the left is making the point.
Hence, why we get a Black Republican being chased down the street by a white liberal woman wearing a Gorilla mask and the usual loud mouths claiming racism is everywhere suddenly go silent
Calling the black man a white supremacist, from a white person wearing a gorilla mask, is a pretty good indication of how far in the gutter American politics is right now.
Do you think Newsom will get recalled?
I think he hangs on but I don't think it will be a blowout victory that some of the polls say. The Democrats are worried about the Hispanic turnout as well as the 18-24 vote. I'm thinking something like 54-46 to Newsom.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
More expensive coffees. Yay!
Surely a visit to a coffee shop for a cup of over-priced coffee and an extortionately-priced slice of plastic-wrapped cake is a bit of a luxury, not a staple?
"Brexit: more staples, less luxury" wouldn't have been a great slogan. I don't get the point of coffee shops though, definitely not a luxury for me, but I'd expect other parts of hospitality get equally hit and that will be a shame.
The cost of a coffee is measured in fractions of a penny.
What you are paying for is the rent on the shop, the staff, heating, lighting, wifi etc etc.
You may or may not remember the Guardian upset about the cafe in East London selling cereal at X pounds a bowl - it seemed to surprise alot of people that in such operations, the food and drink is tiny part of the cost.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
What is the proportion of Welsh speakers in Wales who use the language normally? On the (sadly rare occasions recently) I've holidayed in Ynys Mon or Gwynedd it seems reasonably high. And it often seems a reason for negative comments from English visitors.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Not necessarily.
For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.
In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
It also leads to replacement of labour with capital, so, as baristas become more expensive, coffee shops use machines rather than people to make the coffees. This increases productivity, a metric which has been declining in recent years thanks to a increased supply of unskilled labour.
See also car washes, which were almost all machines until the price of labour dropped significantly.
These kinds of stories work well anecdotally and may apply in a few parts of the economy, but you would struggle to find a robust relationship between immigration and wages in the data. Indeed, in terms of a simple raw correlation, wage growth and immigration (NI no registrations of adult overseas nationals) are positively correlated.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
The amount of publicity it generates means it's actually good value for brands to spend money on relative to real advertising.
It also pays for the fashion / costume part of the Met which is fully funded by donations of which this the Ball is the biggest part.
Finally were it not for Emma Raducanu attending I suspect we wouldn't even know about it.
Emma may have highlighted it but it came over as vulgar wealth and those calling for wealth taxes should be demanding them from this section of society
Indeed someone wore a dress with 'tax the rich' on it
Have we discussed whether as was said over the weekend, BoJo intends to make 2024 into another Brexit election? Is this a good idea?
If (as I and others belief) a significant part of his support comes from Red Wall seats (and Hartlepool does demonstrate that Farage cost the Tories 30-50 seats in the last election) Boris needs to ensure he keeps those votes.
And claiming Brexit isn't finished will help him do that and potentially justify why the improvements promised haven't all been delivered yet.
I do believe Boris will play that card and that Isam's bet is safe - in part because the Tories are starting from a theoretical majority of 130 and they are not going to lose anywhere near that number of seats.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
Bilingualism is normal in most places, eg Scandinavia. England is unusual in having so many monolinguists. Not good for the brain, or the soul.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
The amount of publicity it generates means it's actually good value for brands to spend money on relative to real advertising.
It also pays for the fashion / costume part of the Met which is fully funded by donations of which this the Ball is the biggest part.
Finally were it not for Emma Raducanu attending I suspect we wouldn't even know about it.
Emma may have highlighted it but it came over as vulgar wealth and those calling for wealth taxes should be demanding them from this section of society
Indeed someone wore a dress with 'tax the rich' on it
Some people are getting it
That someone was AOC - it was a statement of intent from her.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Nippy doesn't want it.
Right now she has all the glory, and none of the pain of actually doing it.
Bit like BoZo. Winning the referendum was not what he wanted.
It just isn't true. The SNP exist for independence. If they didn't want it the easiest thing in the world would be to step back now and say "we can't have it". No, instead it is "we want it and you will give it".
So I believe you are wrong for three reasons. One - the SNP are pressing ahead with the referendum bid Two - the SNP actually believe it the long term aim and benefits Three - the SNP know that if there is no independence coming other parties are available. Let a few years slip past, have more questions asked about murk in the SNP and the idea of Alba taking over isn't daft.
Hmmm
One: She has supposedly been pressing on for 7 years without being one inch closer, running out of carrots Two: SNP may but Nippy and leadership not so much , they would be swept away and lose their cushy numbers, she is power crazy Three: She will hang on as long as she can , court cases may force that , and hope to get plum job elsewhere in Europe , UN , etc. Murk will drip out or explode in court cases. They cannot even hold a conference now as they dare not let ordinary members vote, only a matter of time.
Leaving aside the rights and wrongs of Sturgeon's time at the reins (reigning at the reins?), I think most top politicians in a democracy have a certain shelf-life before events start getting to them. ~Seven years is when the signs of the end starting showing for Thatcher and Blair, and they were deposed at ten years. It might be worse for Sturgeon, as she was deputy FM for (fx checks) seven years before that. Fourteen years at, or beside, the top, is quite an achievement. But has she gone stale?
Merkel is perhaps an exception to the rule - 16 years. Quite an achievement.
I don't think an indyref is inevitable in the near future (although I'm not completely ruling it out) even if Starmer forms a gvt with the support of Lib dems and SNP as even in that scenario the lib dems would be relatively resistant to a 2nd ref in that scenario or at least the terms the snp try and demand.
Sturgeon is still popular among younger/socially liberal soft no, soft yes voters in the real world and I don't see the clamour for an immediate referendum from a lot of people who think she still doing good job at holyrood and the more disillusioned snp/alba independence activists do not appear to have that much leverage.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
My three half-Thai granddaughters speak both Thai and English, and it's quite common to meet Thai people with a good command of English, especially among those with a reasonable level of secondary education. England and parts of the USA seem unusual in thinking that there's no language other than theirs.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
My three half-Thai granddaughters speak both Thai and English, and it's quite common to meet Thai people with a good command of English, especially among those with a reasonable level of secondary education. England and parts of the USA seem unusual in thinking that there's no language other than theirs.
Parts of the US think British is a second language! Used mainly in Australia!
Have we discussed whether as was said over the weekend, BoJo intends to make 2024 into another Brexit election? Is this a good idea?
If (as I and others belief) a significant part of his support comes from Red Wall seats (and Hartlepool does demonstrate that Farage cost the Tories 30-50 seats in the last election) Boris needs to ensure he keeps those votes.
And claiming Brexit isn't finished will help him do that and potentially justify why the improvements promised haven't all been delivered yet.
I do believe Boris will play that card and that Isam's bet is safe - in part because the Tories are starting from a theoretical majority of 130 and they are not going to lose anywhere near that number of seats.
Is that, I wonder, why Frost wants to renegotiate the N. Ireland protocol?
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
Bilingualism is normal in most places, eg Scandinavia. England is unusual in having so many monolinguists. Not good for the brain, or the soul.
Is Scotland much different from England in this respect Stuart? I would have assumed Scotland would be just as monoglot as England, for exactly the same reasons.
Personally, I cannot conceive of the ability to understand another language. I managed a GCSE in German on the grounds of memorising a lot of words and grammar. I could speak and write it to a passable standard. But when someone else was speaking it - or speaking any other language I have only a smattering of - they honestly may as well be speaking Clanger. My only way of understanding someone who is not speaking English, even if I nominally know a few words of the language, is to start by assuming what they must be saying given the situation.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Does Starmer have the balls to hang tough on that?
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
Precisely. The SNP (whatever they say to the contrary) don't care if the Tories are in Downing Street or if Labour are.
Their sole priority is to get an independent Scotland.
If Labour in Downing Street makes it easier to get an independent Scotland, that's a reason for them to facilitate a Labour PM entering if they're kingmakers. If it doesn't, they've no reason to do so.
One of the reasons for the SNP currently being so strong in Scotland is that they've wrested the anti-Tory mantle from Labour.
If there's a hung Parliament and the SNP don't support Labour, precipitating a general election that could lead to a Tory government - then that's Labour's best chance of winning back voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence.
That boat has sailed.
For half the population of Scotland "stopping the Tories" is not the solution anymore and besides, if they remain in the UK then Labour may temporarily "stop the Tories" but independence will permanently do so.
Who are these mythical voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence? Especially when by the next election we'll already be basically a decade past the last referendum and by the end of the following Parliament we'll be about 15 years on from it, so the "generation" argument is really lost.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
Bilingualism is normal in most places, eg Scandinavia. England is unusual in having so many monolinguists. Not good for the brain, or the soul.
Is Scotland much different from England in this respect Stuart? I would have assumed Scotland would be just as monoglot as England, for exactly the same reasons.
Personally, I cannot conceive of the ability to understand another language. I managed a GCSE in German on the grounds of memorising a lot of words and grammar. I could speak and write it to a passable standard. But when someone else was speaking it - or speaking any other language I have only a smattering of - they honestly may as well be speaking Clanger. My only way of understanding someone who is not speaking English, even if I nominally know a few words of the language, is to start by assuming what they must be saying given the situation.
I found German 'O' Level difficult. However, on a school trip to Germany after the exam I was the one called upon to interpret, as I could manage the spoken language quite reasonably.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Does Starmer have the balls to hang tough on that?
QTWAIN.
Starmer didn't have the balls to oppose Corbyn's antisemitism while Corbyn was leader. Starmer doesn't have the balls to oppose Boris on any lockdown measures. Starmer doesn't have the balls to present an alternative to taxing employees more.
When, while in Parliament, has Starmer ever shown balls? He's played every choice as 'safe' as he can for his own career.
The young Starmer had balls fighting McDonalds, the middle aged Starmer has lost them completely.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Does Starmer have the balls to hang tough on that?
QTWAIN.
Starmer didn't have the balls to oppose Corbyn's antisemitism while Corbyn was leader. Starmer doesn't have the balls to oppose Boris on any lockdown measures. Starmer doesn't have the balls to present an alternative to taxing employees more.
When, while in Parliament, has Starmer ever shown balls? He's played every choice as 'safe' as he can for his own career.
The young Starmer had balls fighting McDonalds, the middle aged Starmer has lost them completely.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
My three half-Thai granddaughters speak both Thai and English, and it's quite common to meet Thai people with a good command of English, especially among those with a reasonable level of secondary education. England and parts of the USA seem unusual in thinking that there's no language other than theirs.
Parts of the US think British is a second language! Used mainly in Australia!
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
My three half-Thai granddaughters speak both Thai and English, and it's quite common to meet Thai people with a good command of English, especially among those with a reasonable level of secondary education. England and parts of the USA seem unusual in thinking that there's no language other than theirs.
Parts of the US think British is a second language! Used mainly in Australia!
With a South African accent!
In Texas, some years ago, I was asked where my wife & I came from 'As you dress like S. Africans and speak like Australians.' And my wife's accent is Lancashire.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Touchingly naïve and driven by your desperation to get Labour back into Government and desire not to frighten the horses - hence your all too palpable excitement on here this morning.
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
Precisely. The SNP (whatever they say to the contrary) don't care if the Tories are in Downing Street or if Labour are.
Their sole priority is to get an independent Scotland.
If Labour in Downing Street makes it easier to get an independent Scotland, that's a reason for them to facilitate a Labour PM entering if they're kingmakers. If it doesn't, they've no reason to do so.
One of the reasons for the SNP currently being so strong in Scotland is that they've wrested the anti-Tory mantle from Labour.
If there's a hung Parliament and the SNP don't support Labour, precipitating a general election that could lead to a Tory government - then that's Labour's best chance of winning back voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence.
That boat has sailed.
For half the population of Scotland "stopping the Tories" is not the solution anymore and besides, if they remain in the UK then Labour may temporarily "stop the Tories" but independence will permanently do so.
Who are these mythical voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence? Especially when by the next election we'll already be basically a decade past the last referendum and by the end of the following Parliament we'll be about 15 years on from it, so the "generation" argument is really lost.
The hardcore of pro independence Scots is only about 37% of the population, well below the 50%+ the SNP is currently on.
So if 13%+ of Scottish voters switched en masse to Scottish Labour because the SNP enabled a Tory government by refusing to vote down a Tory government with most seats but not a majority, that would put Scottish Labour over 30% and it could win back enough central belt seats from the SNP for Labour to win a UK majority on its own without needing the SNP at the next general election
But in particular, I'd never heard this about Neymar:
"Even in cases where the content is ultimately removed, Facebook has treated VIP users differently from others. In the documents reviewed by the WSJ, the case of Neymar, the Brazilian soccer player, stands out. In 2019, he posted a video to his Facebook and Instagram accounts that contained nude photos of a woman who had accused him of rape. He claimed that she was extorting him. ... Regular moderators couldn’t touch it, and by the time it was taken down by the XCheck team, 56 million people had seen it. The video was reposted 6,000 times, and many commenters bullied and harassed the woman. Neymar denied the rape allegations, and no charges were filed. But despite posting what Facebook itself called “revenge porn,” Neymar’s account was not deleted. “After escalating the case to leadership, we decided to leave Neymar’s accounts active, a departure from our usual ‘one strike’ profile disable policy,” a Facebook review said."
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
UK equivalent stuff like the MET Gala should have at least a 100% tax attached to the ticket price. The great and the good are all desperate to be seen at stuff like it, and $60k would be chump change to 95% of the audience, and 5% to the backers of the remaining slightly poorer 5% (AOC for instance). AOC would probably agree with that to be perfectly honest.
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
As far as I’m concerned there’s not enough coffee shops!
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
Well said. My 2-year-old granddaughter speaks both English and Swedish, but I'd like to think that any future success she may have will not be attributed solely to the fact that she is fortunate enough to be bilingual.
Bilingualism is normal in most places, eg Scandinavia. England is unusual in having so many monolinguists. Not good for the brain, or the soul.
Is Scotland much different from England in this respect Stuart? I would have assumed Scotland would be just as monoglot as England, for exactly the same reasons.
Personally, I cannot conceive of the ability to understand another language. I managed a GCSE in German on the grounds of memorising a lot of words and grammar. I could speak and write it to a passable standard. But when someone else was speaking it - or speaking any other language I have only a smattering of - they honestly may as well be speaking Clanger. My only way of understanding someone who is not speaking English, even if I nominally know a few words of the language, is to start by assuming what they must be saying given the situation.
Scotland is even more monoglot English-speaking than England. Because England has many more bi- and trilingual immigrants
I was struck, in Switzerland, by the absolute ease with which kids there - young as 8 or 9 - switch between German, french and English. Or German Italian and English. The common denominator is English…
That said this will all soon be redundant when smartphones finally become babelfish. 3 years? 5? Machine translation is now superb (despite much skepticism on here); real time conversation translation via AirPods is round the corner. Babelfish. Exactly as D Adams envisaged
So I guess pretty soon we will have zero unemployment, wages will rise and overall we will start to look after our own country, rather than rely on others...
I remember the 1980's when there were 3million+ unemployed.
Now the problem seems to be that there are too many jobs. Who would have thought that 18 months ago?
Its a very similar position - the unemployed aren't where the jobs are. Tebbit didn't say "there's no jobs", he said "on yer bike" because there were jobs elsewhere.
The structural problem of the 80s is worse now. Living and housing costs are through the roof, support services either non-existent or crazy expensive. Whilst "just pay more" seems to be the suggestion of moron MPs a lot of businesses simply cannot do so.
If businesses can't afford to pay more then they'll go out of business and that will free up the labour they're using to fill more productive vacancies instead.
That's how competition works.
Perhaps.
But what may happen is that the mobility of the job matters more than its profitability.
Some jobs (lorry driving, say) can't be offshored, and it makes sense for their cost to go up. But others (making batteries, for example) can happen anywhere, and the UK is happy to import the products of Romanian factory workers tariff and quota free.
What sectors do you see shrinking to free up people to do what will still be relatively low-paid jobs?
Well as an example I used the other day if you go to the average high street at the moment then (even pre-Covid) you could easily see for instance 8 cafes or coffee shops on the same high street. Not all of which would be busy.
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
It also leads to replacement of labour with capital, so, as baristas become more expensive, coffee shops use machines rather than people to make the coffees. This increases productivity, a metric which has been declining in recent years thanks to a increased supply of unskilled labour.
See also car washes, which were almost all machines until the price of labour dropped significantly.
These kinds of stories work well anecdotally and may apply in a few parts of the economy, but you would struggle to find a robust relationship between immigration and wages in the data. Indeed, in terms of a simple raw correlation, wage growth and immigration (NI no registrations of adult overseas nationals) are positively correlated.
Car washes I suspect were a combination of expensive machinery, a lack of genuine acceptance by customers and the ability for it to be a cash in hand business.
Whgile you can't correlate immigration with reduced investment in productivity, it's easy to see a correlation between (minimum) wages and productivity improvements - just go into McDonalds and look at the self ordering machines.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
There is no need for any kind of deal with the SNP. If the SNP wants to bring down a minority Labour government and so risk returning the Tories to power that is a decision the party will have to justify to the Scottish electorate in the subsequent general election.
Does Starmer have the balls to hang tough on that?
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
But in particular, I'd never heard this about Neymar:
"Even in cases where the content is ultimately removed, Facebook has treated VIP users differently from others. In the documents reviewed by the WSJ, the case of Neymar, the Brazilian soccer player, stands out. In 2019, he posted a video to his Facebook and Instagram accounts that contained nude photos of a woman who had accused him of rape. He claimed that she was extorting him. ... Regular moderators couldn’t touch it, and by the time it was taken down by the XCheck team, 56 million people had seen it. The video was reposted 6,000 times, and many commenters bullied and harassed the woman. Neymar denied the rape allegations, and no charges were filed. But despite posting what Facebook itself called “revenge porn,” Neymar’s account was not deleted. “After escalating the case to leadership, we decided to leave Neymar’s accounts active, a departure from our usual ‘one strike’ profile disable policy,” a Facebook review said."
Facebook is evil (tm). Yet I use it...
That woman would have a pretty strong civil case against Facebook, irrespective of what local laws might apply to the posting of such material where he lives. The sexually explicit content was bought to their attention, was clearly in breach of their rules, but senior managers took an active decision not to remove it. Over to you, Nick Clegg.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
The SNP would be big losers with PR.
UK PR wouldn't really affect an independent Scotland. but if they lost Sindy2 you are right they would lose out mightily if the PR system was UK wide. they would have to insist on some regional element in case they lost. and that would show a lack of confidence in the Sindy outcome.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
I think you might be projecting
If you think AOC doesn't moralise or preach, I have a bridge to sell you...
Mind you, maybe you are right. She didn't say anything about a Black man getting publicly harassed by a white woman wearing a gorilla mask so maybe she is easing off on it a bit.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
It's pure baloney. Of all the bad takes one sees on here sometimes this one is right up there.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
Surely Sindyref2 is inevitable if there is a Labour minority or a handsome Johnson majority, or is HYUFC correct and a referendum is never granted on Johnson's watch. FWIW I am not as convinced as I once was that Sindyref2 won't give us the same result as Sindyref1.
Nippy seems to be rowing back on her dates as we speak ( less confident of the result?) and perhaps a non-Conservative government will be less loathed from North of Hadrian's wall and voters less likely want to leave the UK. Maybe not
Nicola is in a fascinating position. Currently she is exactly where she wants to be; any change would spoil it.
Boris would triumph of course if he allowed a Ref2 and won; but the tiny chance (5-10%?) he would lose will be enough to stop him.
Nicola of course is finished if there is Ref2 and she loses; but her real nightmare is what happens if the outsider romps home and she wins?
Only Salmond has nothing to lose from Ref2, and that is because he has nothing to lose.
I don't buy this "Nats don't want independence" line. Pretty sure they do.
Golden PB rule, further away one is from Scotland, the easier it is to read Sturgeon’s true motives.
I read Scotland from an England where Scotland is visible from a few yards up the road and where huge numbers of lives would be disrupted by an EU border. And, BTW, look at an election map; the Tories hold every Scottish and English seat on the border.
Fair enough, a few yards from'seeing' Scotland, or the bit of it which holds a tiny part of its population, is the insight we're all looking for.
Thanks. Another insight from Rheged/Alt Clud/Northumbria might be that Cumbria has 6 seats (going down to 5) of which 4 should be solid/solidish Labour - Carlisle, Copeland, Barrow, Workington - and currently none are.
Another is that Neil Hudson, new MP for Penrith and Border was (I think) the only Tory MP to vote against the government in both the development budget vote and the NI rise vote. One to watch.
Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports. But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282
The amazing thing about Emma speaking fluent Mandarin is what it represents. This is a new image of Britain forming right before our eyes. Multicultural. Multilingual. Confident. Winning. Raducanu has done for diversity what Rashford did for community. So, so good.
Oh for God's sake! Let's get real. There have been plenty of people around in Britain for ages with parents born abroad, sometimes even both, who speak one our more of their parents' languages. I am one such. I had lots of friends at school who were in a similar position. And I have known plenty throughout my life. And quite a few were from the well-established Chinese community in Britain. Many have achieved much in their respective fields.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
It’s all because she’s sensationally pretty. Before I get accused of perving on HTG’s, let me stress I am simply making a point about media. If you’re very attractive, and, in particular, if you’re a very attractive young woman, your chances of being in the papers or on TV are multiplied hugely. Papers and tv know that pix of HTGs are popular with women as well as men. Catnip for homo sapiens. We have evolved to admire them
Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful
The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
Is the gist of this defence that the Epstein money that paid off Giuffre was bogof for Andrew's dubious activities also? Jeffrey, what a guy, helping a pal out from beyond the grave!
STV News @STVNews 1h Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
There are plenty of high profile celebrities and businessmen and politicians who associated with Epstein, not just Prince Andrew, I expect they would all be happy if that agreement was held to have legal force
It rather depends on what the agreement says. All I have read suggests that it may refer to trafficking so it might act as a sort of estoppel against making such allegations against others (eg Andrew). But it may well not work wrt to sexual assault allegations.
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Not necessarily.
For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.
In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
but that is comparing a landslide which included winning most of Scotland with the scenario of Labour having a minority government with virtually no Scottish seats.
Government delays Brexit border controls for food checks on imports. But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282
Why do you keep posting this crap? What does it mean to you?
As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.
That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
So she should be spending $30K on a ball ticket (and then we have the dress).
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
The US has created a system where politicians raise many millions and spend it the way they think thats most effective whether its TV, print, online or events. That's the game. AOC is just playing the rules of the game. If she didn't who would it help? Not her supporters certainly.
Put it this way. The Tories got 365 seats for their 44.7% of the GB vote in 2019, which doesn't look particularly impressive compared with what Blair got in 1997 and 2001 (418 for 44.3% and 412 for 42.0%). But the Tories are very strong in c.345 seats. Their vote is very nicely distributed.
Blair owned Scotland in those days.
The most obvious way Starmer gets into power is via C&S with the SNP.
They will want a referendum, and money of course.
The most obvious way Starmer never gets near power is via C&S with the SNP.
He'll do the deal if that's what required to get him into No.10.
Labour need 280 seats. That's it.
This argument comes up all the time, and I don't get it:
2024: Starmer becomes PM of a minority government with SNP support 2025: 2nd Scottish referendum is held, and Leave wins 2027: Negotiations on Scottish independence conclude, Scotland leaves the UK, and give up their seats at Westminster
STarmer now has, instead of 280+59 seats out of 650, has 280 out of 591, and no majority.
So how does Starmer govern from them on? Unless he thinks that by then he'll have a chance at a majority in England and Wales alone. I guess the SNP could be persuaded to hang around for another couple of years in exchange for ... something, but then what?
Put simply: the price of SNP support is independence. Labour may have no chance of a majority with no/few MPs in Scotland, but equally they have even less chance of a pure majority without Scotland in the picture at all. So how could they possibly agree to C&S?
This is why there won’t be C&S. Labour will just dare the SNP to vote then down, which if Labour have 280 seats they can explain to their voters why they wanted the Tories back.
The days of formal arrangements are over. It’s possible - although unlikely - Labour bring the LDs in but nobody else than that.
Personally I think Lib Dems should force PR in such a scenario, then have an election on that in the future
could Labour make SNP help in voting through PR for UK be the price of Sindy2?
Not necessarily.
For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.
In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
but that is comparing a landslide which included winning most of Scotland with the scenario of Labour having a minority government with virtually no Scottish seats.
Even without winning most of Scotland Labour won 62% of English seats in 1997 under FPTP, under PR only 43% of English seats would have been Labour.
Plus to win enough seats to be able to form even a minority government a lot of Labour MPs will have been elected for the first time under FPTP some of whom may then lose their seats under PR to the Greens or LDs
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
That Met Gala really does look like The Hunger Games.
The Met Gala is an obscene display of vulgar wealth and when talking of wealth taxes there is one of your targets
Start with Miss Ocasio-Cortez - who I just remembered has a salary of $174,000 per year, before tax.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
Her campaign has over $5m in the bank and you can see the top contributors if you are really interested. They want her to represent their views, which she is doing with the dress. Not a fan at all of US political fundraising, but her funds are raised far more democratically than most of their politicians.
1) It is 1970 since a party with this size of majority lost office at an election.
2) Boundary changes make winning many former Labour seats back just that little bit harder.
3) The aftershock of Brexit may be important but the key question is where Brexit party voters go. They appear to have been mostly disillusioned Labour voters who didn’t want to vote Tory. They have three options (1) to go the whole hog and vote Tory, as in Hartlepool, in which case another 50-odd Labour seats suddenly look vulnerable (2) to return to Labour, which is what they did in Wales at the assembly elections, in which case NOM is value or (3) to abstain.
I think probably around half will go for three on the basis neither party represents them. The rest I think it will vary by MP, which is where I think Brexiteer MPs in the red wall may get an incumbency bonus this time.
A general election campaign will be an opportunity for English voters, outside of the urban cores and university seats, to take a proper look at Labour and be reminded of everything they dislike about it.
The Conservative vote share has been climbing, to varying degrees, for the last six general elections on the bounce. With Farage out of the picture and his vehicles piled up in the junkyard, a seventh increase seems plausible. At this stage I'd be inclined to back a three-figure Government majority next time around.
I like that, a gutsy call.
However... Even if the Conservatives manage to maintain their vote share in 2024, I suspect they'll still lose seats (after boundary effects), simply because voters get better at tactical voting.
The scope for the anti-Tory vote become much more efficient on its own is limited. They start with 317 seats in which they won 47.5% or more of the vote. Only once (Newcastle-under-Lyme, 2017) have the Tories hit that percentage and lost since 1979.
Okay, so boundary changes make this difficult to assess (the cities seat is being split up, etc.), but the Tory vote needs to be eroded in most of these for them to come into play.
Interesting list. Only 20 Tory seats won with less than 45%, and therefore susceptible to tactical voting if the Con share stays the same.
Comments
https://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2021/04/23/a-guest-thread-on-scottish-independence-and-electoral-reform/
If the price for Baristas goes up, the price for coffee might go up but not as much, and then instead of having 8 such shops you might have 6 or 7 with the least efficient of those going out of business. Freeing up the labour they were using, and the property they were using, for something more productive.
The sector becomes more productive by losing the least productive entities, the wages go up, the profits of the surviving ones might actually increase despite higher wages (due to slightly reduced competition) and its all affordable due to increased productivity.
STV News
@STVNews
1h
Lawyers for Duke of York say a woman who accuses him of sexually assaulting her has a prior agreement 'releasing the duke and others from any and all potential liability'.
Which will have the added benefit of freeing up land.
Maybe all of them.
There is nothing new about this.
The one thing new is having someone that young win a major sporting tournament in such an impressive way. Kudos to her. But let's not pretend that somehow the fact that she speaks another language on top of English (gasp!) or has foreign born parents (double gasp!) is something new.
because things will look good then?
or things starting to deteriorate so better to go sooner than later?
Do you think Newsom will get recalled?
The SNP will want their pound of flesh and will absolute use their mathematical position to get it. Either it will be a formal C&S deal or it will be informal and they will strike deals with Starmer on a case by case basis behind the scenes.
Their priority is an independent Scotland not blocking a Tory Government.
Their sole priority is to get an independent Scotland.
If Labour in Downing Street makes it easier to get an independent Scotland, that's a reason for them to facilitate a Labour PM entering if they're kingmakers. If it doesn't, they've no reason to do so.
One: She has supposedly been pressing on for 7 years without being one inch closer, running out of carrots
Two: SNP may but Nippy and leadership not so much , they would be swept away and lose their cushy numbers, she is power crazy
Three: She will hang on as long as she can , court cases may force that , and hope to get plum job elsewhere in Europe , UN , etc. Murk will drip out or explode in court cases.
They cannot even hold a conference now as they dare not let ordinary members vote, only a matter of time.
If 10p per cup goes to ensuring baristas have a better standard of living, I can live with that. Can't you?
On topic I expect a reduced conservative majority but I would not bet on any outcome for GE24
I understand that the CMOs have agreed that the booster jabs will commence in the order to those first vaccinated, as the vaccine is good for at least 6 months so those vaccinated later will receive their booster later
Seems sensible
See also car washes, which were almost all machines until the price of labour dropped significantly.
R (comm)
4,69 %
+2,3
SV (socialist left)
7,48 %
+1,4
Ap (workers)
26,35 %
–1,0
Sp (centre)
13,58 %
+3,3
MDG (greens)
3,84 %
+0,6
KrF (christian dem)
3,81 %
–0,4
V (liberals)
4,48 %
+0,1
H (conservatives)
20,45 %
–4,6
Frp (populist right)
11,71 %
–3,5
others
3,61 %
+2,0
4% is the threshold
I think it is around 50/50 whether the tories have a majority at the next GE but less than 50/50 chance that they'll lose power.
I'd see them at about 320 seats or so, just shy of a majority but easily able to carry on.
The Tories will have a very clear position: they delivered Brexit, they will defend it and Britain's interests.
I might think that's cobblers, and we're unnecessarily inflicting economic self-harm, but as a political story it works.
Labour will try and sell a position of making all the Brexit problems go away by being more pragmatic and less ideological about the implementation, but I think they'll get tripped up on the question of whether they'd rejoin the single market.
Merkel is perhaps an exception to the rule - 16 years. Quite an achievement.
If there's a hung Parliament and the SNP don't support Labour, precipitating a general election that could lead to a Tory government - then that's Labour's best chance of winning back voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence.
If Labour won most seats it would be less of an issue as Starmer could become PM without needing SNP support as he would still have more seats than the Tories
What you are paying for is the rent on the shop, the staff, heating, lighting, wifi etc etc.
You may or may not remember the Guardian upset about the cafe in East London selling cereal at X pounds a bowl - it seemed to surprise alot of people that in such operations, the food and drink is tiny part of the cost.
I’m going to take a wild guess that she didn’t buy her own $30,000 ticket to the ball - so who did, and what do they expect from her in return?
It also pays for the fashion / costume part of the Met which is fully funded by donations of which this the Ball is the biggest part.
Finally were it not for Emma Raducanu attending I suspect we wouldn't even know about it.
And it often seems a reason for negative comments from English visitors.
For starters if Labour has won enough seats to form a government then a number of Labour MPs elected under FPTP would lose their seats under PR and therefore could join the Tories and vote it down even if it had SNP support.
In 1997 for example Labour won over 60% of the seats under FPTP but only 43% of MPs would have been Labour under PR
Indeed someone wore a dress with 'tax the rich' on it
Some people are getting it
And claiming Brexit isn't finished will help him do that and potentially justify why the improvements promised haven't all been delivered yet.
I do believe Boris will play that card and that Isam's bet is safe - in part because the Tories are starting from a theoretical majority of 130 and they are not going to lose anywhere near that number of seats.
Sturgeon is still popular among younger/socially liberal soft no, soft yes voters in the real world and I don't see the clamour for an immediate referendum from a lot of people who think she still doing good job at holyrood and the more disillusioned snp/alba independence activists do not appear to have that much leverage.
https://www.opensecrets.org/members-of-congress/alexandria-ocasio-cortez/summary?cid=N00041162&cycle=2022&type=C
England and parts of the USA seem unusual in thinking that there's no language other than theirs.
Personally, I cannot conceive of the ability to understand another language.
I managed a GCSE in German on the grounds of memorising a lot of words and grammar. I could speak and write it to a passable standard. But when someone else was speaking it - or speaking any other language I have only a smattering of - they honestly may as well be speaking Clanger. My only way of understanding someone who is not speaking English, even if I nominally know a few words of the language, is to start by assuming what they must be saying given the situation.
For half the population of Scotland "stopping the Tories" is not the solution anymore and besides, if they remain in the UK then Labour may temporarily "stop the Tories" but independence will permanently do so.
Who are these mythical voters who prioritise stopping the Tories over Independence? Especially when by the next election we'll already be basically a decade past the last referendum and by the end of the following Parliament we'll be about 15 years on from it, so the "generation" argument is really lost.
Starmer didn't have the balls to oppose Corbyn's antisemitism while Corbyn was leader.
Starmer doesn't have the balls to oppose Boris on any lockdown measures.
Starmer doesn't have the balls to present an alternative to taxing employees more.
When, while in Parliament, has Starmer ever shown balls? He's played every choice as 'safe' as he can for his own career.
The young Starmer had balls fighting McDonalds, the middle aged Starmer has lost them completely.
And my wife's accent is Lancashire.
So if 13%+ of Scottish voters switched en masse to Scottish Labour because the SNP enabled a Tory government by refusing to vote down a Tory government with most seats but not a majority, that would put Scottish Labour over 30% and it could win back enough central belt seats from the SNP for Labour to win a UK majority on its own without needing the SNP at the next general election
https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2021/09/leaked-documents-reveal-the-special-rules-facebook-uses-for-5-8m-vips/
But in particular, I'd never heard this about Neymar:
"Even in cases where the content is ultimately removed, Facebook has treated VIP users differently from others. In the documents reviewed by the WSJ, the case of Neymar, the Brazilian soccer player, stands out. In 2019, he posted a video to his Facebook and Instagram accounts that contained nude photos of a woman who had accused him of rape. He claimed that she was extorting him.
...
Regular moderators couldn’t touch it, and by the time it was taken down by the XCheck team, 56 million people had seen it. The video was reposted 6,000 times, and many commenters bullied and harassed the woman. Neymar denied the rape allegations, and no charges were filed. But despite posting what Facebook itself called “revenge porn,” Neymar’s account was not deleted.
“After escalating the case to leadership, we decided to leave Neymar’s accounts active, a departure from our usual ‘one strike’ profile disable policy,” a Facebook review said."
Facebook is evil (tm). Yet I use it...
Also if you are not party to the agreement how can you enforce it. The law is quite complicated - at least over here - re the enforcement of a contract by someone who is not a party to it.
There may also be a public policy angle to this. Should a contract really stop a court determining the truth of an allegation of a crime? This is similar to the arguments around NDAs. But this brings me back to a point I have made before. If she is alleging rape by Andrew then this should be investigated by the police and a criminal court not determined by a civil court. Damages are not the proper remedy for such a crime.
I obviously don't know the details of the case. But I am a bit troubled by both the apparent tactics of Andrew's lawyers (arguing technical points) because while they may be valid as tactics I don't know what the overall strategy is. And his accuser seeking money from him at the last minute when the limitation period is about to expire. She should be referring this matter to the criminal authorities. People have been investigated, charged and convicted for crimes committed long ago. Claiming that the lapse of time is why she hasn't done so doesn't wash I'm afraid. It is hard but not impossible.
I find something really unpleasant in the idea that such serious crimes can be dealt with through the payment of money - both because it risks letting men off the hook and/or because it uses the threat of bad publicity and a finding on the balance of possibilities rather than the harder criminal test as a way of putting pressure on someone who may well be innocent. Neither are good. It harks back to a pre-modern justice age.
Woman of the People!
Actually, if she wants to do that, fine. But she can stop moralising and telling the rest of us how she is so much a better person.
AOC would probably agree with that to be perfectly honest.
I was struck, in Switzerland, by the absolute ease with which kids there - young as 8 or 9 - switch between German, french and English. Or German Italian and English. The common denominator is English…
That said this will all soon be redundant when smartphones finally become babelfish. 3 years? 5? Machine translation is now superb (despite much skepticism on here); real time conversation translation via AirPods is round the corner. Babelfish. Exactly as D Adams envisaged
Whgile you can't correlate immigration with reduced investment in productivity, it's easy to see a correlation between (minimum) wages and productivity improvements - just go into McDonalds and look at the self ordering machines.
Mind you, maybe you are right. She didn't say anything about a Black man getting publicly harassed by a white woman wearing a gorilla mask so maybe she is easing off on it a bit.
Another is that Neil Hudson, new MP for Penrith and Border was (I think) the only Tory MP to vote against the government in both the development budget vote and the NI rise vote. One to watch.
But the border control posts were not ready - In August we revealed Dover not ready till July earliest and downsized. Holyhead not started either. Only just found a site near the retail park at Parc Cybi https://twitter.com/lisaocarroll/status/1428433809595318282
Look at the pictures of AOC in the Met Gala in that dress. They’re everywhere. Yes, because they’re controversial, but also - mainly? - because AOC is quite young and very beautiful
The net has only amplified this tendency. Youtube ‘influencers’ are nearly all young, and hot
This is not the way to do justice
Raise sick pay is a completely new policy
As an independent trading nation the UK is free to impose checks, or to not impose checks, as we determine. If the UK decides its not in our best interests to impose checks, we can choose not to do so.
That's what taking back control means. It means making our own decisions, not having them foisted upon us by others.
Are you still so naive as to not understand that?
It seems like only yesterday we were discussing how shit the New Statesman is with statistics, and related commentary:
Isn't George Eaton the man who lied about the content of his own interview with Roger Scruton on Instagram and got himself demoted?
(The graphics quota is full I think.
link: https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/1437428469735043076)
Plus to win enough seats to be able to form even a minority government a lot of Labour MPs will have been elected for the first time under FPTP some of whom may then lose their seats under PR to the Greens or LDs
DUP's toxic narrative construction on the Protocol is part of the same continuum as the below.
Denying and deflecting the consequences of the Brexit they championed. https://twitter.com/MatthewOToole2/status/1437714718110662660