Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Leicester East – a possible by-election? – politicalbetting.com

123578

Comments

  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    A question which relates slightly to this issue, which is not easy for the centre left.

    In a local small town there are 2 medium size excellent supermarkets. One is socially owned (Co-Op) the other is a German based multi national. They are both popular and well used.

    It is agreed in the community and beyond dispute that the prices in the socially owned non capitalist one are higher than the German one.

    Should a socially owned outfit like the Co-Op be

    1) providing food for the poorest cheaper than anyone else because that is the socially proper thing to do

    or

    2) paying higher wages with better employment standards because that is the socially proper thing to do.

    "Both" is not an answer.



  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
    Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
    IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.

    Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
    That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
    Indeed though I don't think its right to pin the divisions on just Boris.

    He wasn't responsible for creating the repellant FBPE echo chamber.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    edited October 14
    Scottish Subsample Alert KLAXON!!!!!*

    Con: 30
    Lab: 14
    LibD: 4
    SNP: 41
    Grn: 6

    It also shows Plaid on 3 in Scotland which is a novelty....


    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rh8jc785e5/TheTimes_VI_Results_211013_W.pdf

    * For those new to the site, subsamples, by their nature, are not remotely reliable, so for entertainment value only.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,015
    On the tube just now. Rush hour to City. 65% mask wearing.

    They should have special/separate carriages for those people who don't want to wear a mask.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".

    Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:

    This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
    By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 32,015
    Re the polls.

    Amazing. SKS should be ashamed of himself.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379
    edited October 14

    Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.

    I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)

    I have no idea, but the evidence suggests that SKS is considered electable but his party isn't.

    From SKS point of view as winning the next election is impossible his target must be a combined effort from the Lab, LD, SNP and green to get 45-50 seats off the Tories. He does not need to lead the polls to achieve that.

    Tory tacticians will be working overtime on neutralising that issue.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 16,770

    Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.

    I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)

    I buy it.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,232
    algarkirk said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    A question which relates slightly to this issue, which is not easy for the centre left.

    In a local small town there are 2 medium size excellent supermarkets. One is socially owned (Co-Op) the other is a German based multi national. They are both popular and well used.

    It is agreed in the community and beyond dispute that the prices in the socially owned non capitalist one are higher than the German one.

    Should a socially owned outfit like the Co-Op be

    1) providing food for the poorest cheaper than anyone else because that is the socially proper thing to do

    or

    2) paying higher wages with better employment standards because that is the socially proper thing to do.

    "Both" is not an answer.

    Indeed - one of the interesting contradictions in the capitalist industrial model. Cheap stuff for the workers, but at what price?

    Equally, expensive luxury goods for the rich support high paid, high quality jobs. People who work at Bentley etc.
  • Taz said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday said the government should issue 100,000 visas for HGV drivers, rather than 5,000.

    https://www.ft.com/content/683b4e41-9470-46ce-9c32-fe75214c4bf2
    So where are these HGV drivers who are going to come here ?

    It is just not feasible. Cheap politics

    There are global shortages in truck drivers. Even nations as far afield as Uzbekistan and Mexico have shortages. It is not just confined to the UK or EU.

    He should be calling for more training, better conditions for those in the industry, local councils adopting HGV friendly policies such as removing double yellow lines on industrial estates and speeding up the testing process and eliminating the backlog.
    In the long term we need all those things. In the short term we need drivers. Where will they come from? The EU! Where do you think drivers come from in the EU when most countries now have a shortage? Why do you think there are no actual shortages in European supermarkets?

    Thats how a free market works. There is an overall shortage but free movement of goods and labour covers the holes. People can work anywhere and drive goods anywhere. Cutting ourselves out of the well established EU logistics network where GB formerly was a major hub means we need more domestic vehicles for internal movement of stuff whilst giving ourselves fewer trucks and fewer drivers. Despite the overall shortage in the EU they simply don't have that issue.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".

    Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:

    This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
    By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
    And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    Don't hold your breath. The amount of swirling bullshit from the Johnson fan club would normally suggest trouble ahead but I can't see were it's coming from. Maybe it's just embarrassment at what they've trodden on.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,989
    edited October 14
    TOPPING said:

    Re the polls.

    Amazing. SKS should be ashamed of himself.

    He needs to be on the news every day moaning at the government about the driver shortage.

    But he won’t, because the root cause of the backlog is the testing centres being shut, for union-backed ‘health and safety’ issues related to the pandemic.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    algarkirk said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    A question which relates slightly to this issue, which is not easy for the centre left.

    In a local small town there are 2 medium size excellent supermarkets. One is socially owned (Co-Op) the other is a German based multi national. They are both popular and well used.

    It is agreed in the community and beyond dispute that the prices in the socially owned non capitalist one are higher than the German one.

    Should a socially owned outfit like the Co-Op be

    1) providing food for the poorest cheaper than anyone else because that is the socially proper thing to do

    or

    2) paying higher wages with better employment standards because that is the socially proper thing to do.

    "Both" is not an answer.



    It wouldn't surprise me if the actual answer current is "neither".

    I worked for the Co-Op in 2000 when I was 17/18 and was treated like a piece of dirt. They were paying £2 per hour in 2000. I worked 6pm to 10:30pm and was unable to take even a few minutes unpaid break to have a sandwich for dinner because that's only a 4.5 hour shift and you could only take breaks if your shift was five hours.

    I quit when I got a job at McDonalds and was treated with far more respect, far more dignity, paid a higher wage, and given complementary food and drink.

    It wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if German capitalist outfit treats their staff better than the Co-Op as well as being cheaper for the community. I have absolutely zero respect whatsoever for the Co-Op.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,000

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday said the government should issue 100,000 visas for HGV drivers, rather than 5,000.

    https://www.ft.com/content/683b4e41-9470-46ce-9c32-fe75214c4bf2
    That doesn't answer my question at all, as you must know. Starmer's proposal was for a short-term fix, and he would be quite happy if any HGV drivers on visas had high wages. And anyway, HGV drivers are not particularly low paid by comparison with, say, care workers. So, where's the evidence that Starmer opposes pay increases for the low paid?

    I'll answer for you. There isn't any. Because he doesn't.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    Pret doing best in Yorkshire, outer London & regions, worst in Scotland & City:

    New data from @Pret A Manger show in the week ending 7 Oct 2021, sales at stores in Manchester increased to 113% of its average level in Jan 2020 Sandwich

    This is the highest level of transactions in Manchester, post #COVID19, since the series began


    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1448570613803757574?s=20
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,258
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
    Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
    Tory core vote is high and solid, because of perceived/actual success with Brexit and vaccines.

    Labour opposition have failed to pin any of the blame for recent difficulties onto the government.

    Relative strength of Greens in opinion polls, most likely as a protest vote against Starmer's centrism/ineffectiveness, but possibly also because of the prominence of climate as an issue.

    I have a couple of ideas about all of this that I might develop further into a submission for the site.
  • eekeek Posts: 15,852

    Pret doing best in Yorkshire, outer London & regions, worst in Scotland & City:

    New data from @Pret A Manger show in the week ending 7 Oct 2021, sales at stores in Manchester increased to 113% of its average level in Jan 2020 Sandwich

    This is the highest level of transactions in Manchester, post #COVID19, since the series began


    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1448570613803757574?s=20

    Um Manchester has never been in Yorkshire...
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379

    Scottish Subsample Alert KLAXON!!!!!*

    Con: 30
    Lab: 14
    LibD: 4
    SNP: 41
    Grn: 6

    It also shows Plaid on 3 in Scotland which is a novelty....


    https://docs.cdn.yougov.com/rh8jc785e5/TheTimes_VI_Results_211013_W.pdf

    * For those new to the site, subsamples, by their nature, are not remotely reliable, so for entertainment value only.

    One or two other interesting subsamples.
    No regional group thinks it was right to Leave the EU.
    But C2DE still think it was right.
    And 33% of Scots think it was Right to leave.

    And generally, the overall figures for 'Wrong to leave' are strengthening over time.

  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    At least half those Greens are midterm Labour voters on strike.

    True GE positions are Labour 35-36% and Conservatives 39-40% atm, IMHO.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    edited October 14
    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    No, it was fully in line with Tory principles and was the most popular policy the Tory party has produced this century which produced the biggest single Tory poll gain this century.

    Dropping it would be political suicide in the Blue Wall, given plenty of home owning Tory Remainers and their children live in London and the Home Counties if IHT is raised there and the threshold for payment lowered there will be nothing to keep them from voting Starmer Labour or LD and keep them voting Tory given they are already sceptical about Brexit and too much building in the greenbelt. Some rightwingers would also go ReformUK who want to scrap IHT completely
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379

    At least half those Greens are midterm Labour voters on strike.

    True GE positions are Labour 35-36% and Conservatives 39-40% atm, IMHO.

    Which is territory where Tories could lose their overall majority.

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,831
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,232
    eek said:

    Pret doing best in Yorkshire, outer London & regions, worst in Scotland & City:

    New data from @Pret A Manger show in the week ending 7 Oct 2021, sales at stores in Manchester increased to 113% of its average level in Jan 2020 Sandwich

    This is the highest level of transactions in Manchester, post #COVID19, since the series began


    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1448570613803757574?s=20

    Um Manchester has never been in Yorkshire...
    It's part of the new level up strategy. The government sends teams in to install wheels under various bit of the UK and randomly move them around the country.

    Wait until MalcolmG discovers he is now living in Surrey.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    algarkirk said:

    YouGov surveyed on the question of whether students should be allowed to have various sorts of society at universities - things like Men's Rights and Feminism societies. (Twitter Oct 12)

    In every case a significant % of the public said that they should not. (The highest % saying this should not be allowed was on Pro Life issues.)

    In a liberal, freedom of speech and thought world this is not even be a question.

    Troubling times.

    Most still wanted even pro life societies on campus
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    I'd prefer a modest annual tax on overall asset wealth to be honest.

    Taxing people out of their family home just after the loss of a loved one doesn't sit well with me, and many other people.
  • Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    algarkirk said:

    At least half those Greens are midterm Labour voters on strike.

    True GE positions are Labour 35-36% and Conservatives 39-40% atm, IMHO.

    Which is territory where Tories could lose their overall majority.

    Yes. The margin is far narrower than it appears.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242
    Roger said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    Don't hold your breath. The amount of swirling bullshit from the Johnson fan club would normally suggest trouble ahead but I can't see were it's coming from. Maybe it's just embarrassment at what they've trodden on.
    I think some of them have eaten it..
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    Latest REACT study:

    - The report found 764 positives from 100,527 swabs giving a weighted prevalence of 0.83%
    - However, there was some variation between age groups. Prevalence was growing in those aged 17 years and below with an R number of 1.18, while prevalence was decreasing in those aged 18-54 years with an R number of 0.81.
    - At the regional level, prevalence ranged from 0.57% in the South East to 1.25% in Yorkshire and The Humber. There was evidence of growth in both East Midlands and London with R of 1.36 and 1.59 respectively.
    - In people of Black ethnicity, prevalence was higher at 1.41% compared with white participants at 0.78%.
    - Prevalence was higher among larger compared with smaller households, ranging from 0.33% for single-person households to 1.75% for households with 6 or more persons.
    - Among households with one or more children, prevalence was also higher at 1.37% compared with 0.40% in households without children.
    - In those reporting two doses of vaccine, prevalence was 0.56% compared with 1.73% in unvaccinated people.
    - Among people who were in contact with a confirmed COVID-19 case, prevalence was 7.35% compared with 0.43% among those without such contact.


    https://www.ipsos.com/ipsos-mori/en-uk/latest-react-1-study-findings-show-sars-cov-2-infection-rates-were-rising-young-people-remaining
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    House prices coming down is absolutely necessary. If that means the Tories going into Opposition, then that's a price I'm prepared to pay to see the right thing happen. They've had a good run in office, no party should be in office forever. Especially since the Tories are increasing taxes working people, maybe some years in opposition will focus minds.

    The only alternative to a house price crash is a few years of high inflation and house price stability. That will erode house prices (and all other assets) without creating negative equity.

    Either inflation or a crash. We really need one or the other, and the Tories be damned.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 34,063
    gealbhan said:

    rcs1000 said:

    ping said:

    What a vile individual, Claudia Webbe.

    Personally I wouldn't trust any parent that wasn't prepared to throw acid in the eyes of people who impeded their childrens' rise.
    What?
    @rcs1000 's penchant for mordant irony is akin to his taste in music - incomprehensible to the uninitiated.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379
    HYUFD said:

    algarkirk said:

    YouGov surveyed on the question of whether students should be allowed to have various sorts of society at universities - things like Men's Rights and Feminism societies. (Twitter Oct 12)

    In every case a significant % of the public said that they should not. (The highest % saying this should not be allowed was on Pro Life issues.)

    In a liberal, freedom of speech and thought world this is not even be a question.

    Troubling times.

    Most still wanted even pro life societies on campus
    Nonetheless the number of people wanting to ban lawful association whether it is for stamp collecting, trans rights, appreciating the Austen Allegro or Morris dancing really should be approaching zero. (Except for Morris dancing obvs). A depressing possibility is that up to ?20+% of people want to ban things just because they hold a different opinion. That's a lot of people.

  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,232
    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
    They are actually moving quite slowly. Given the rate of progress with their space station efforts, they are not in any hurry.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724
    edited October 14

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 125 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.

    What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?

    Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Space exploration, beyond sightseeing tours for the very rich, is mainly to do with finding new planets to replace this one (which in a few billion years we will have to do anyway when the Sun consumes earth).

    For now however the focus should be on improving life on this planet and preserving the environment here
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242

    Pret doing best in Yorkshire, outer London & regions, worst in Scotland & City:

    New data from @Pret A Manger show in the week ending 7 Oct 2021, sales at stores in Manchester increased to 113% of its average level in Jan 2020 Sandwich

    This is the highest level of transactions in Manchester, post #COVID19, since the series began


    https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1448570613803757574?s=20

    If you're gonnae come at Greggs you'd better be carrying.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
    They are actually moving quite slowly. Given the rate of progress with their space station efforts, they are not in any hurry.
    It'll be interesting to see how they do it. I doubt they will go for the one-person Soviet landing module design (which I saw at the Science Museum a few years back in the Cosmonauts exhibition).
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972
    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 36,554
    HYUFD said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Space exploration, beyond sightseeing tours for the very rich, is mainly to do with finding new planets to replace this one (which in a few billion years we will have to do anyway when the Sun consumes earth).

    and the Scots will still be waiting for their referendum?
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 57,370
    Mr. Carnyx, and space is the ultimate military high ground.

    Drones are increasingly important in warfare. But a tungsten rod from orbit will neatly obliterate a house. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how future technology could allow (without nukes) for more wide scale orbital weaponry.

    Mr. HYUFD, expanding the boundaries of human knowledge and technological possibilities is inherently a good thing. And it's not a choice that has to be made, any more than choosing between buying gym gloves or apples.

    I'd also add that mining asteroids might be a rather big deal too.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    tlg86 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 1.25 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.

    What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?

    Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
    What really needs to happen is to have inflation represent all prices and not just the current basket. Most especially it should incorporate house prices.

    For the past couple of decades we've been lied to that there hasn't been inflation, while housing costs (the biggest cost in a household's budget on average) have gone through the roof.

    If Stuartinromford's scenario comes to pass that consumer prices are rising but house prices are falling, then that should not justify an interest rate rise, since overall prices would be stable (its just rebalancing from one cost to another) then why should interest rates move?
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,989

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
    They are actually moving quite slowly. Given the rate of progress with their space station efforts, they are not in any hurry.
    That’s because it’s actual rocket science. They’ve ‘borrowed’ as much Western knowledge as they can find, and are now having to do the rest the hard way, with large teams of engineers working through all the problems.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
    They are actually moving quite slowly. Given the rate of progress with their space station efforts, they are not in any hurry.
    That’s because it’s actual rocket science. They’ve ‘borrowed’ as much Western knowledge as they can find, and are now having to do the rest the hard way, with large teams of engineers working through all the problems.
    'Western' including Sov/Russian, I believe (sensible enough a strategy).
  • GreenHeronGreenHeron Posts: 129
    Re: the current polling. Seems pretty simple to me - swing voters tend to vote based on their own view of how the world is, rather than what the media tell them it should be.

    At the moment, job security is at its highest level in years, wages are going up, people are enjoying their freedom to do what they want after the pandemic, whilst on the other hand the issues in terms of supply chains are a minor inconvenience rather than the armageddon being portrayed in the press.

    Sorry guys, we're the exception. People don't tend to do a detailed SWOT analysis of government strategy when deciding how to vote (and as this site shows, most would still vote tribally anyway). It's simply, do I feel healthy and wealthy in comparison to the norm and if the answer is yes, why would I want to kick the government out?

    While I think the winter of discontent narrative is likely to be hugely overblown, it is also true that the increased energy costs will not have bitten yet, so by March or April next year, after a winter of soaring bills, I think it's highly likely the answer to the same question in the paragraph above may become no - and it's here where public opinion (at least mid-term) may start to turn.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    Mr. Carnyx, and space is the ultimate military high ground.

    Drones are increasingly important in warfare. But a tungsten rod from orbit will neatly obliterate a house. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how future technology could allow (without nukes) for more wide scale orbital weaponry.

    Mr. HYUFD, expanding the boundaries of human knowledge and technological possibilities is inherently a good thing. And it's not a choice that has to be made, any more than choosing between buying gym gloves or apples.

    I'd also add that mining asteroids might be a rather big deal too.

    Indeed, though weaponry is currently banned by treaty. That will be an important marker point, if the treaty isd abrogated or breached.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,473

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    As a train fan it's sad to see the decline in usage. Although I can't really complain as I have replaced my own five days a week commute by train with a three days a week commute by bike. I can't say I am missing the high ticket prices, cancelled and late trains or squeezing into a tiny middle seat in between overweight Kentish mouth-breathers, either.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    As a train fan it's sad to see the decline in usage. Although I can't really complain as I have replaced my own five days a week commute by train with a three days a week commute by bike. I can't say I am missing the high ticket prices, cancelled and late trains or squeezing into a tiny middle seat in between overweight Kentish mouth-breathers, either.
    One has to ask, are mouth-breathers of Kent acceptable?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,473
    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    moonshine said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    Imagine the number of vaccines you could buy if Buck House was sold off for development.....
    It would never be sold off for development, even if we were a republic it would be the residence of the President.

    Prince William's comments that we should focus on problems on this planet before we spend vast sums on space exploration though I would expect to go down well with most voters. Personally I am in favour of space exploration
    The danger of him speaking in criticism of specific areas rather than just woolly words on something popular, is that it might work this time but next time he'll miscalculate what the public will accept, or stop caring if they will.
    It all comes back to his current focus on climate change and preserving the environment on this planet first before putting too much focus on outer space.

    The monarch and heirs to the throne are rightly not just mute dummys they can on occasion campaign and express things they believe in
    I didn't say they couldn't. But they should be wary of how they go about it. Environmental policies are popular, but attacking space exploration is not necessary to talk up environmental policies. It's a short step from that to those whingers who complain if everyone doesnt talk about the environment all the time.

    He's not crossed a line yet, but he soon will if he wants to start in effect condemning people for not doing what he would prefer.
    The purpose of space exploration ultimately is to leave this planet, we should focus on preserving this planet first as he correctly said.

    Yes you can have some space exploration but it does not give you license to destroy your current planet and ignore the problems on it, note too the only people going into space so far are mostly the rich.
    You would do well to explore the history of why the West became the dominant civilisation of this planet despite China's head start in almost every respect. Hint: one looked beyond the horizon and the other looked inward. It's perfectly possible to work on improving the environment on Earth at the same time as removing the barriers to space exploration. There's this South African chap you may have heard of who is doing a more than creditable job of both for example.
    Hmm, the PRC is currently doing quite a bit in the space exploration line. Won't be long before they have a manned moon landing.
    They are actually moving quite slowly. Given the rate of progress with their space station efforts, they are not in any hurry.
    That’s because it’s actual rocket science. They’ve ‘borrowed’ as much Western knowledge as they can find, and are now having to do the rest the hard way, with large teams of engineers working through all the problems.
    'Western' including Sov/Russian, I believe (sensible enough a strategy).
    Also Nazis, obvs. Those guys really knew a thing or two about rockets.
  • Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 43,972

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    As a train fan it's sad to see the decline in usage. Although I can't really complain as I have replaced my own five days a week commute by train with a three days a week commute by bike. I can't say I am missing the high ticket prices, cancelled and late trains or squeezing into a tiny middle seat in between overweight Kentish mouth-breathers, either.
    I agree with you.

    That said, I still like the romance of train travel - and of staring out the window - but it has to be calm, reliable and comfortable.

    Civilised.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,258
    algarkirk said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    A question which relates slightly to this issue, which is not easy for the centre left.

    In a local small town there are 2 medium size excellent supermarkets. One is socially owned (Co-Op) the other is a German based multi national. They are both popular and well used.

    It is agreed in the community and beyond dispute that the prices in the socially owned non capitalist one are higher than the German one.

    Should a socially owned outfit like the Co-Op be

    1) providing food for the poorest cheaper than anyone else because that is the socially proper thing to do

    or

    2) paying higher wages with better employment standards because that is the socially proper thing to do.

    "Both" is not an answer.
    An interesting question. My impression is that the German multinational supermarket does manage both, because it has a more efficient business model. Productivity is the answer.

    However, given a forced choice the answer is (2), because if it applies to all sectors of the [global] economy then everyone is able to afford any increase in prices required.

    If there's an actual shortage in supply - which requires that some people are unable to satisfy their demand in order to bring supply and demand into balance - then we obviously have bigger problems if that occurs with an essential like food.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,379

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    House prices coming down is absolutely necessary. If that means the Tories going into Opposition, then that's a price I'm prepared to pay to see the right thing happen. They've had a good run in office, no party should be in office forever. Especially since the Tories are increasing taxes working people, maybe some years in opposition will focus minds.

    The only alternative to a house price crash is a few years of high inflation and house price stability. That will erode house prices (and all other assets) without creating negative equity.

    Either inflation or a crash. We really need one or the other, and the Tories be damned.
    These are massive issues when it comes to votes. There isn't much doubt that much of the SKS strategy for Labour led government (not a Labour government because there isn't going to be one) is simply to be the only alternative when a few of these things come true. Inflation in particular will trash the Tory vote, which relies on older and cautious voters who have seen it all before. Inflation is no problem at all if you don't own anything.

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 6,473
    Carnyx said:

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    As a train fan it's sad to see the decline in usage. Although I can't really complain as I have replaced my own five days a week commute by train with a three days a week commute by bike. I can't say I am missing the high ticket prices, cancelled and late trains or squeezing into a tiny middle seat in between overweight Kentish mouth-breathers, either.
    One has to ask, are mouth-breathers of Kent acceptable?
    Ha ha. An important distinction. At that time in the morning, all mouth breathing is unwelcome, especially during a pandemic.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 4,493

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    70% of previous levels is far from disastrous for rail, particularly if the pattern of demand is as CR describes (this is my expectation too). Catering for commuter flows is massively inefficient: essentially, you need to build the capacity to carry inbound demand between 7.30 and 9.30 and outbound demand between 4.30 and 7, with the result that outside these hours, and within these hours in the opposite direction, you are expensively carrying a lot of empty air around.
    A lower overall level of demand, but better spread, will be much easier to cater for.
    We may even get the virtuous circle whereby because we are able to cover more of our costs with farebox revenues - because we are carrying less empty air - we are able to run generally higher frequencies during the off peak, which, in turn, drives up passenger numbers.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    At least half those Greens are midterm Labour voters on strike.

    True GE positions are Labour 35-36% and Conservatives 39-40% atm, IMHO.

    Possibly.

    But where they are is as important as how many there are.

    Voters going back and forth between Labour and Green in London, Brighton, Bristol, Oxford, Cambridge and so on has not much effect on number of MPs elected.
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 30,219
    Cyclefree said:



    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    Missing the point I think.

    First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.

    This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.

    Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.

    Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.

    But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.

    And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
    I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
  • londonpubmanlondonpubman Posts: 1,273

    Off topic, the asymptote upon which train travel appears to be converging post-Covid is about 70% of pre-Covid levels. That takes us back to rail passenger volumes typical of the late 90s/early 00s.

    This is accounted for by well over half of previous 4-5 day commuters going down to 2-3 days a week but an increase in leisure and off-peak travel to compensate. It also explains why TOCs are trying to cut out 20% of costs from their operations so they get to a modest 10-15% headroom loss that HMG can then stabilise subsidies around. This should be enough to stave off any new round of Beeching type closures but will mean services are trimmed and rationalised on some routes.

    In the long-term, volumes should slowly creep back up (at a lower rate) but it will wreak havoc with the business cases for some new expensive routes, particularly those like East-West Rail, and maybe some other planned Beeching reopenings. Transpennine Upgrade will probably still ok due to politics.

    A close shave.

    Yes the government has been talking about East West rail Oxford to Cambridge a long time now and not a lot seems to be happening. I think those waiting for improvements such as reopening to Ashington are also in for a long wait.

    Agreed closures are unlikely, it is virtually impossible for Network Rail to get a passenger closure signed off by the Secretary of State and this has been the case for a long time now. This of course, on the whole, a good thing.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 319

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".

    Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:

    This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
    By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
    And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
    Here we go again.

    Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    Cyclefree said:



    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    Missing the point I think.

    First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.

    This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.

    Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.

    Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.

    But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.

    And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
    “The intimidation of Professor Stock is no longer about any one issue. It is an outright attack on the ideals of tolerant, open-minded debate and on the very nature of our liberal society” writes Michelle Donelan, minister for Higher and Further Education.

    https://twitter.com/Pomegranate2021/status/1448523872945545217?s=20
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,724

    tlg86 said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    How do the politicians (both government and opposition) play that? The independent BoE, concerned about inflation, starts to raise rates. Let's say the base rate hits 2% around mid-2023. That's 1.25 basis points more than the base rate has been since the global financial crash.

    What do politicians say? Do they say that the Bank is wrong to raise rates to combat inflation? Do they come out in favour of protecting the lifestyles of those with big mortgages?

    Personally, I'll believe the rate rises when I see them. I'm 34 and for my entire working life, the base rate has been less than 1%. Short of a run on the pound, I don't see the Bank doing anything dramatic. I reckon in 18 months the base rate will be no more than 0.75%.
    What really needs to happen is to have inflation represent all prices and not just the current basket. Most especially it should incorporate house prices.

    For the past couple of decades we've been lied to that there hasn't been inflation, while housing costs (the biggest cost in a household's budget on average) have gone through the roof.

    If Stuartinromford's scenario comes to pass that consumer prices are rising but house prices are falling, then that should not justify an interest rate rise, since overall prices would be stable (its just rebalancing from one cost to another) then why should interest rates move?
    Yeah, I'm not an economist, but I feel some things are priced at what people can afford after other stuff is priced in. So if people have to spend more on some things, that leaves less to spend on houses.

    The problem, of course, is that a lot of people have assumed that other costs won't change and have borrowed a lot of money to buy the house they want.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 319
    Regrettably I can believe that the tories continue to be 10% ahead in the polls. It's a combination of things.

    For the most part it's because the alleged dire news has simply not yet fed through to the red blue wall voters. Yep, yep, a few empty shelves from time to time and a bit of a queue to fill up but for the most part it's all flotsam and jetsam.

    For now.

    The other reason is that much as I wish it were not so, Keir Starmer really isn't cutting the mustard.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 21,873

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    Who knows.

    What we do know is that Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid and is also so clueless on the subject that he thought that insufficient visas was the limiting factor for delivery drivers rather than poor pay and conditions.
    Could you point me to actual evidence that "Starmer has shown that he opposes pay increases for the low paid". I can't find it.
    Thanks in advance.
    But Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer on Sunday said the government should issue 100,000 visas for HGV drivers, rather than 5,000.

    https://www.ft.com/content/683b4e41-9470-46ce-9c32-fe75214c4bf2
    That doesn't answer my question at all, as you must know. Starmer's proposal was for a short-term fix, and he would be quite happy if any HGV drivers on visas had high wages. And anyway, HGV drivers are not particularly low paid by comparison with, say, care workers. So, where's the evidence that Starmer opposes pay increases for the low paid?

    I'll answer for you. There isn't any. Because he doesn't.
    LOL

    A 'short term fix'.

    Yeah, right.

    Starmer's pavlovian response was to get cheap migrants.

    That he thought the limiting factor was a lack of visas rather than poor pay and conditions merely illustrates is ignorance of the issue.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    algarkirk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    House prices coming down is absolutely necessary. If that means the Tories going into Opposition, then that's a price I'm prepared to pay to see the right thing happen. They've had a good run in office, no party should be in office forever. Especially since the Tories are increasing taxes working people, maybe some years in opposition will focus minds.

    The only alternative to a house price crash is a few years of high inflation and house price stability. That will erode house prices (and all other assets) without creating negative equity.

    Either inflation or a crash. We really need one or the other, and the Tories be damned.
    These are massive issues when it comes to votes. There isn't much doubt that much of the SKS strategy for Labour led government (not a Labour government because there isn't going to be one) is simply to be the only alternative when a few of these things come true. Inflation in particular will trash the Tory vote, which relies on older and cautious voters who have seen it all before. Inflation is no problem at all if you don't own anything.

    Well indeed.

    Is the Tory Party to be the Party of entrenching the interests of those who already have assets because they were born in an age when work paid? The party of redistribution from those who are working to those who aren't?

    Or is the Tory Party to be the Party of ambition and opportunity, that believes that hard work and effort should be rewarded? That those without assets but with graft can seize the opportunities before them? The party of low taxes that believes that people should keep what they earn and provide for themselves?

    I don't believe in redistribution from those who are working to those who aren't. If the Party wants to take that path, they can do so without my vote.
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 319
    My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.

    With a similar outcome.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,232
    Carnyx said:

    Mr. Carnyx, and space is the ultimate military high ground.

    Drones are increasingly important in warfare. But a tungsten rod from orbit will neatly obliterate a house. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how future technology could allow (without nukes) for more wide scale orbital weaponry.

    Mr. HYUFD, expanding the boundaries of human knowledge and technological possibilities is inherently a good thing. And it's not a choice that has to be made, any more than choosing between buying gym gloves or apples.

    I'd also add that mining asteroids might be a rather big deal too.

    Indeed, though weaponry is currently banned by treaty. That will be an important marker point, if the treaty isd abrogated or breached.
    Only nukes in space are banned.

    Dropping spare asteroids on people you don't like isn't banned.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 25,493
    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
    Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
    IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.

    Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
    That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
    He needs to be careful with this Forever War against the EU, though. Yes, it plays well to his Leaver base, and he needs to keep that together to win again, but he also needs to keep most of another (smaller but still important) voter group who were key to his election victory - those who truly did just want to Get Brexit Done. The brilliant campaign stunt where he drove a digger through a wall was targeted at these people, many of whom had voted Remain. They were tired of the issue and went with "Boris" so as to finish it. I can relate. I felt the same way about Brexit by then and I might have voted for him too if I were apolitical rather than a Hard Left Social Democrat. But thinking of those who did, will they be impressed if fractious Brexit negotiations become the new normal? Will they appreciate having a lot of Lord Frost in their lives? I'd say not. I reckon they'll go, "Hang on. I thought this was sorted. Was that a con? Was my vote snaffled under false pretences by a lying pig of a Tory politician? Hmm. Let's have a think about this."
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242
    Does he, aye?

    'A new life awaits you in the Off-world colonies. The chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure.'


  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566
    edited October 14
    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    Missing the point I think.

    First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.

    This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.

    Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.

    Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.

    But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.

    And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
    I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
    On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.

    Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.

    OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 5,258
    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    It's interesting to consider why taxing wealth is so unpopular. I think it's a cultural aspect exemplified by Del Boy's, "This time next year we'll be millionaires!"

    That is the dream because achieving a certain threshold of wealth is seen as the way to escape the tyranny of work. There's a lot said about the importance and dignity of work when talking about people on working age benefits, but most of society aspires to join the rentier class.

    Tax wealth too highly and you make it harder for people to reach the point where they can stop working and live off their assets. The Protestant work ethic is dead.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 14,945

    Does anyone seriously believe that the Tories are 10 points ahead? I certainly don't. It just doesn't pass the "stick your head out a window" test.

    I guess it's Corbynites saying they won't vote for Starmer. (Most of them will.)

    That's as maybe but there's little doubt that Labour are in trouble. My feeling is that it's an identity problem. Labour are without an identity. Political parties all have an image. We might not all see the image the same way but we all have a good idea of how we see them.

    Thanks to Corbyn Labour have no recognisable image at all . Are they the compassionate party?.... the revolutionary party? .....the party of the unions?.....modernisers?... traditionaists?.....Remainers?.... Leavers? ....Do they even still still use the red rose?

    In the jargon of market researchers if Labour was a car what would it be? Would you even know if it was diesel petrol or electric?

    Someone's going to have to get a grip or Johnson's going to have a free ride
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 4,572
    Heathener said:

    Good morning campers.

    So I was given a rather rough ride by one or two (right wing old men) when I first joined for fearfully suggesting that daily cases might well reach 100,000 come autumn/winter. Apparently to sign up on here and express concern was 'trolling' (= bizarre). The latest ZOE press release suggests the daily rate is 66,000 and rising.

    https://covid.joinzoe.com/post/covid-cases-in-children-continue-to-climb

    Whilst it's true that death rates have, thankfully, not risen exponentially I remain cautious about the UK situation. Our daily infection rate is one of the highest in the world and I think one thing everyone could agree, from left or right, authoritarian or libertarian, is that there's no room for complacency.



    I have explained the context for why you received the response you got. PB had had several new posters come on and immediately start posting about new lockdowns, rumours about fake news etc.
    I would note that despite recent rises, the measured rate is around 40,000 case (or positive tests) per day, and has been that plus or minus 10k for a good while. I'd also note that most cases by far are in the schoolchildren.

    It is fine to be concerned, but perhaps ask yourself why we have not heard from SAGE members in recent times. The current infections among the young and the over 18 year old unvaccinated (almost all have been eligible to have had two does by now) are helping us ultimately reach immunity for all. Clearly an ideal would be no cases. It seems unlikely that that will EVER happen now, covid is endemic. What we can hope for is that it is mostly a mild to moderate cold like illness. Some will die, as they do from flu, and that will skew heavily be age.

    Lastly - I've never met you, why do you assume I am a right wing old man?
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".

    Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:

    This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
    By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
    And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
    Here we go again.

    Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
    What's hate-filled about it?

    When women are being told people with a penis must be allowed in women's only prisons and shelters, and when lesbians are being told that not wanting to have sex with people with a penis is a 'cotton ceiling' discrimination then maybe just maybe things are going too far?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    edited October 14

    algarkirk said:

    Sean_F said:

    rkrkrk said:

    rkrkrk said:

    isam said:

    Sandpit said:

    Quite a contrast between how Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary thinks rising wages for the working class is a good thing but Keir Starmer thinks its a bad thing.

    I'm sure that if Starmer was in government that he would be lauding the increases in wages, and the Tory leader of the Opposition would be warning of the perils of inflation.
    It’s still quite astonishing that the Labour Party appears not to be wholeheartedly supporting wage inflation happening specifically to the lower deciles on the income scale. Levelling up, they might want to call it.
    It is incredible. Workers are becoming more powerful and Labour are trying to stop it
    Labour have been in favour of wage growth all along. It's the Tories that have delivered essentially no real wage growth and essentially no productivity growth over the past decade.

    I still think Brexit is going to mean lower real wages for most people. Guess we'll see in three-five years time.
    Worth noting that the "real wage growth" train was more a thing of 2020 than 2021. Real wages have been roughly flat this year.

    https://twitter.com/BruceReuters/status/1447836456010067968?s=20

    (And I'd happily bet a shiny sixpence that the average covers a lot of variation. Real terms rises for certain jobs that have to be done in a certain place (transport, construction?) and real terms falls elsewhere?)
    Yes, definitely true that the average will hide a lot of variation.

    When Boris bangs on about how wages are growing and he's proud of it... Keir should look into the camera and ask people "Do you feel like your salary has gone up?". For most people the answer will be no...
    Yes. What did it for Major's government was that the post Black Wednesday recovery was there on paper but not in most people's reality. There has long been a disconnect between the paper economy and the lived economy. When politicians say "you've never had it so good" and most people don't feel that it does two things. One - this politician is clueless about reality, and Two - other people must be doing great and he's only talking about them.

    I keep making the point - the red wall expects results and quickly. Being told how amazing things are when they remain just as shit as before is a guaranteed way to lose.
    I'd say what did for Major (other than sleaze, time for a change, an attractive Labour leader) was the house price crash of 1990-93. There were humungous swings against the Conservatives in constituencies where prices had crashed.

    The paradox is that from about 1993-99, we enjoyed a very sweet spot of rising real wages, with static house prices that had become a lot more affordable. House prices then surged after 2000.
    And that's why I'm concerned, and the Conservatives should be concerned.

    Getting non-negligible interest rates back into the system is a necessary thing. And the current increases in inflation make it look like now is the time. But I don't see how you increase interest rates without hitting house prices. And that is going to hurt lots of people.

    Few news events cut through with the public; they have more sense. But increases in prices and taxes reducing your ability to buy the things you want cuts through and not being able to afford your mortgage payments cuts through a lot.

    If those things don't happen, the current stasis may well continue. The interesting thing in terms of predicting the future (because it could go all sorts of ways) is what happens if those events do come to pass.

    It would be ironic if the event that really hurts BoJo is one that isn't really his fault.
    House prices coming down is absolutely necessary. If that means the Tories going into Opposition, then that's a price I'm prepared to pay to see the right thing happen. They've had a good run in office, no party should be in office forever. Especially since the Tories are increasing taxes working people, maybe some years in opposition will focus minds.

    The only alternative to a house price crash is a few years of high inflation and house price stability. That will erode house prices (and all other assets) without creating negative equity.

    Either inflation or a crash. We really need one or the other, and the Tories be damned.
    These are massive issues when it comes to votes. There isn't much doubt that much of the SKS strategy for Labour led government (not a Labour government because there isn't going to be one) is simply to be the only alternative when a few of these things come true. Inflation in particular will trash the Tory vote, which relies on older and cautious voters who have seen it all before. Inflation is no problem at all if you don't own anything.

    Well indeed.

    Is the Tory Party to be the Party of entrenching the interests of those who already have assets because they were born in an age when work paid? The party of redistribution from those who are working to those who aren't?

    Or is the Tory Party to be the Party of ambition and opportunity, that believes that hard work and effort should be rewarded? That those without assets but with graft can seize the opportunities before them? The party of low taxes that believes that people should keep what they earn and provide for themselves?

    I don't believe in redistribution from those who are working to those who aren't. If the Party wants to take that path, they can do so without my vote.
    The Tory Party has always been the party of preservation of wealth and assets first. If you want to transfer tax from income to wealth then you are a Liberal not a Tory or Conservative and should move parties accordingly.

    If you want to raise taxes on both wealth and income then you are a socialist and belong in the Labour Party
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 15,347
    Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.

    Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    Heathener said:

    My fear is that Johnson vs Starmer is going to look an awful lot like Reagan vs Mondale in 1984.

    With a similar outcome.

    I doubt it, even Yougov today has the Tory voteshare down on 2019, just Labour has lost a lot of votes to the Greens which will likely go Labour next time.

    Most likely it will be a narrow Tory majority or a hung parliament
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 52,016
    Heathener said:

    Taz said:

    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    The debate is whether LGB are opposed to trans rights or are in favour LGB rights - for example "the cotton ceiling" and whether lesbians should be expected to have sex with trans-women, with penises, and those who demure are "trans-phobic".

    Also Stock's position on gender recognition is mis-represented by her critics:

    This lie was repeated on a BBC programme, and I hope to get a correction. If this student had actually read what I write, they'd know I support the RETENTION of the Gender Recognition Act as is.

    https://twitter.com/Docstockk/status/1448531076398428160?s=20
    Attacking the LGB Alliance by targetting their charitable status, which she seems to support, is rather unpleasant too. The debate is just binary. You either unswervingly support the lobby or you are an enemy. There is no middle ground. LGB Alliance is not anti trans, it is just pro same sex attraction. It is like JK Rowling who suffers horrendous abuse for being pro-women. She is not anti trans. It is a vile debate that demonises women.
    By that logic I presume one would also be considered homophobic for not wanting to have sex with a gay man.
    And transphobic for not wanting to have sex with a pre-op (or indeed post) trans woman.
    Here we go again.

    Can't you just desist? This kind of hate-filled bile is so, so, unnecessary.
    So it's not true?

    https://terfisaslur.com/cotton-ceiling/
  • YouGov consistently is showing Labour at around 31%, contrasting with 35%/36% with other polling firms.

    As such today's YouGov is continue the position of flat polls for this month if you are comparing polls with previous polls from the same firms.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 10,817
    edited October 14

    kjh said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    Foxy said:

    moonshine said:

    MaxPB said:

    Taz said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Pulpstar said:

    FPT:

    This truly is a leftie government, Sunak is a pound shop Gordon Brown.

    Pension savers face risk of higher fees as Sunak seeks billions for ‘levelling up’

    Ministers are looking to relax rules shielding tens of millions of UK retirement savers from high charges as they step up efforts to funnel pension fund cash into the government’s “levelling up” agenda.

    Officials are working on proposals to dilute the 0.75 per cent ceiling on annual management fees, which was put in place in 2016 to protect workers auto-enrolled into workplace pensions from having their savings eroded by high charges.

    Chancellor Rishi Sunak is looking at ways to tap billions of pounds of pension fund cash to invest in long-term projects, including infrastructure schemes, renewable energy projects and innovative tech firms, to help deliver on UK prime minister Boris Johnson’s pledge to spread economic growth across the UK.


    https://www.ft.com/content/a8cad0f1-fd85-40ed-aa19-e71728f10825

    How does diluting (i.e. presumably, increasing or removing) the ceiling on annual management fees increase tax revenues by any worthwhile amount?
    0.75% for the coke snorting broker, 0.5% for the Gov't :p ?
    Ah hem.

    0.75% goes to the fund manager. A sober individual like I used to be.

    The coke snorting broker* gets paid from the commissions that the fund pays when it buys or sells shares. In the old days, that was as much 0.25%, and brokers drove 911s. Now it's more likely to be 0.04 or 0.05%, and brokers bitch about how much better paid fund managers now are.

    * Not *all* brokers snort cocaine. Some of them prefer Adderell.
    The issue here is that the fund manager for millions of people's pensions is the state via NEST. Raising the cap on fees is simply another tax raising measure on working age people.
    And a pretty sneaky one at that, if the aim is to skim money from pension contributions.

    Not quite snaffling coins from the church collection plate, but well on the way in terms of tawdriness. Is this really the level of scrabbling around the government is reduced to?

    I really, really hope I've misunderstood this. Please tell me I've misunderstood.
    You haven't. I work in asset management and it's extremely transparent what the government is aiming to do here, they really are robbing the poorest working age people and destroying any chance of them having a proper private retirement income by making the potential for accruals significantly lower.

    I honestly don't think anyone in the Labour party has the wit or wherewithal to explain this measure that will be sold as a way of taxing profits from extra large pension pots.
    That's the political genius, if I've got it right; a way of getting more money for the government now that nobody will notice for decades. And even then, nobody will notice their poorer pensions or link them to the decisions of long-departed politicians.

    Blooming Sunak, as shabby as the rest of them. And he has such a nice smile; possibly the nicest since John Major (pre-Black Wednesday version).
    It's a copy of what Brown did when he removed dividend tax relief for pension funds. Overnight millions of working age people saw their future income in retirement utterly destroyed. Brown shafted everyone aged between 30 and 50 back then, Sunak is going to do the same now.

    Sometimes I wonder whether moving to Zurich is the right thing to do, then the supposedly low tax party comes up with a genuinely evil policy like this which will destroy pension incomes for the worst off and I know that my wife is right about where the UK is heading.

    Brown was warned about the consequences of his actions too, at the time, by civil servants but still ploughed ahead. Of course many people didn’t realise at the time but the final salary pension in the private sector,pretty much dropped off a cliff after that.

    The man is an idiot.
    And now Sunak is walking the same path, worse he's doing it after seeing the consequences of Brown's awful decision. He's literally making the same mistake again, short term jam today by fucking the retirement incomes of millions of people.

    I saw an article recently about a new brain drain from the UK to Switzerland, New York, Singapore and Australia because working age people really feel put upon. This is going to accelerate that feeling. The Tory party is supposed to be about working hard and getting on in life, this lot are nothing of the sort. They are the party of taxing the workers to give old people all the money in the country. How is anyone on a middle income supposed to get on on life?
    Can’t speak for others but Singapore is not sucking in talent any more, it is spitting it out to such an extent they’ve had a significant population fall. A quite unprecedented change in their demographic that I picked up on anecdotally a while ago and is now confirmed by the stats.

    I hope it works out for you in Switzerland but the grass isn’t always greener and every place has its problems.
    Isn't that population fall mostly to do with Singapore having just about the lowest Fertility rate in the world?
    There’s a lot of expatriate emigration, following changes in government policy to prioritise native Singaporeans for high-skilled jobs. There’s also been very restrictive Covid restrictions there for the past 20 months.

    We see the same local-prioritisation in the Gulf States, where the local population has expanded in recent years and there is a need for private-sector jobs for them to move into.
    Yes indeed. I’m referring to the sudden demographic changes in the last 18 mths, which have been driven by illiberal covid policies that have been targeted more keenly against foreigners than citizens. Interestingly it’s also led to net emigration of citizens too. Lots of mixed nationality marriages probably part of it.

    A mate in Geneva enjoys the tax rate and the lake but says it’s full of smack addicts, one of whom took to defecating outside his door. Hong Kong has its own problems now it’s just China. The Gulf states their own set of highly illiberal laws which occasionally brush against foreigners. The US has gun crime. Canada harsh winters. Etc…

    The UK really is as benign and pleasant a place to live if you have the means to be in the top wealth quartile and have a global mindset.
    Tis a pity that this government so reduced opportunities to migrate, at least for those of modest means. International mobility should only be for the rich...
    Except it didn't really. Not in practice.

    Britain still has free movement with Ireland and as far as I'm aware more people migrated from Britain to Australia than the whole EU combined (exc Ireland). Migration with Australia has post-Brexit been made even easier, so realistically the migration people wanted has been made easier not harder in aggregate.
    No, in practice it really did. We have less freedom than we did before. Today, if you travel to Europe, let alone migrate, you are subject to greater restrictions.

    Let’s not argue that black is white.
    Why are you excluding the world to just Europe? Is Europe the only place in the world to you?

    If you migrate to Europe its a bit harder. If you migrate to Australia its a bit easier. Given more people chose to migrate to Australia than Europe even when we had free movement with Europe, overall that seems like a plus to me.
    A bit harder? Come off it. A lot harder. We had the right to settle any across the continent. We could live wherever. Australia was always restricted by its famous points system.

    Quite fancy living abroad when kids finally naff off, it don’t want to disappear to the arse end of nowhere and never see them.

    I’ve lost freedoms that I valued. Why do Brexit folk like to pretend it hasn’t happened..

    Yes we had the right to settle anywhere across the continent. Australia had a points system.

    And yet (exc Ireland since we still have free movement with them) more people chose to settle in Australia despite the points system than the entire continent with free movement put together.

    If the freedoms were 'so valued' why weren't they exercised?

    I don't deny that its been lost, but nor do I care either. Nor does most of the British public. Relaxing migration with the country people actually want to move to more than the entire EU combined seems better than having free movement with a continent people don't want to move to and a drawbridge with the rest of the world.

    Its about balance. Something you don't have any of it seems in your single-minded worship of Europe and screw the rest of the world.
    Calm down old chap. I am not sure appreciating the freedom to travel or settle in our nearest neighbours counts as ‘single minded worship’. Many exercised those freedoms and now have to join the long queue at airports.

    What’s clear is that you don’t care, but it would be somewhat more intelligent if you noticed that it does matter to others. Denying the change is real doesn’t really help your case.

    No doubt there are, in your view, huge benefits of Brexit. Whilst I am yet to experience one yet personally, I do not deny that others see them or that there haven’t been changes.

    There's no need for long queues at airports. We're still granting EU visitors the right to use the fast lanes at our airports, and most tourist nations are doing the same in return for British visitors. If a few countries like the Netherlands choose to be stroppy then hopefully they lose some tourist income until they get over their strop and come to their senses.

    I accept that there's been a loss of the right to emigrate to the continent, I don't deny that for one second. I just think that since people were not exercising that right and more people chose to emigrate to points-based Australia than the entire continent combined . . . that the 'right' wasn't that important.

    Its swing and roundabouts and balance. I recognise the one, but if you can't recognise the other that balances it out then that's not reasoned.

    Do you think young people being able to now get a 3 year visa [that can be a pathway to permanent visa and citizenship] for the country more people want to emigrate to than any other without needing to become an agriculture worker . . . which wasn't possible to do without Brexit . . . is a good thing?
    Re no queues because countries allow use of same lanes. Well as you know I have been traveling recently and none do. It might be they will but no signs have changed so we all queue up while the odd Irish couple walk through the EU gate.

    Philip you post what happens in theory not reality.
    Which countries have you travelled to?

    Others have said that they have travelled through EU gates in other countries and it differs from country to country.

    I see no reason not to believe the. Are you saying they weren't telling the truth?
    The EU rules allow use of e-Gates for EU EEA CH only. That the odd airport may waive this on the odd occasion doesn't make it universal or regular.

    Incidentally I had been prepared for a long wait to re-enter the UK based on (a) past experience and (b) the growing reports of Border Force being too busy on their "how to drown migrants" course to actually staff the BCP. Nope - no queue at all, gates were not working properly but sufficient people to physically check passports.

    Others have said (and provided photo / video evidence) of a FUBAR multi-hour queue at the same BCP I went through. I see no reason not to believe them or what they posted. Am I saying they weren't telling the truth because my experience was different...?
    E-Gates is a system run by the UK, aiui.

    What does it have to do with the EU?

    I think they are still 2 years from getting their system finished. I expect that border admin will improve when they catch up.

    Are we talking at cross-purposes?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 30,242
    edited October 14
    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
    Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
    IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.

    Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
    That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
    He needs to be careful with this Forever War against the EU, though. Yes, it plays well to his Leaver base, and he needs to keep that together to win again, but he also needs to keep most of another (smaller but still important) voter group who were key to his election victory - those who truly did just want to Get Brexit Done. The brilliant campaign stunt where he drove a digger through a wall was targeted at these people, many of whom had voted Remain. They were tired of the issue and went with "Boris" so as to finish it. I can relate. I felt the same way about Brexit by then and I might have voted for him too if I were apolitical rather than a Hard Left Social Democrat. But thinking of those who did, will they be impressed if fractious Brexit negotiations become the new normal? Will they appreciate having a lot of Lord Frost in their lives? I'd say not. I reckon they'll go, "Hang on. I thought this was sorted. Was that a con? Was my vote snaffled under false pretences by a lying pig of a Tory politician? Hmm. Let's have a think about this."
    I think that's right, and it's implicit in the occasional outbreaks of 'Brexit is over, no one cares about it as an issue' from even the more..er..enthusiastic Brexiteers on here. That they're usually the ones to pick the scab into inflammation again is just one of life's little ironies.
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469

    Dehenna Davison comes out as bi and the Tories jump to a 10 point lead.

    Presumably if The Truss and Priti did likewise, their lead would be stratospheric.

    It would be amusing if Dehenna Davison could in the future potentially be the Tories fourth female PM and the first LGBT PM, before Labour have had any of either.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,890
    An interesting Irish view on the EU's proposals on the NI Protocol - https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1448538052373123075?s=21
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    Carnyx said:

    Mr. Carnyx, and space is the ultimate military high ground.

    Drones are increasingly important in warfare. But a tungsten rod from orbit will neatly obliterate a house. And it doesn't take much imagination to see how future technology could allow (without nukes) for more wide scale orbital weaponry.

    Mr. HYUFD, expanding the boundaries of human knowledge and technological possibilities is inherently a good thing. And it's not a choice that has to be made, any more than choosing between buying gym gloves or apples.

    I'd also add that mining asteroids might be a rather big deal too.

    Indeed, though weaponry is currently banned by treaty. That will be an important marker point, if the treaty isd abrogated or breached.
    Only nukes in space are banned.

    Dropping spare asteroids on people you don't like isn't banned.
    O/T but BTW - ever come across this story? Totally bizarre, letting off nukes in space to make artificial electron storms to fry enemy nuke warheads.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Argus

    Burning the Sky: Operation Argus and the Untold Story of the Cold War Nuclear Tests in Outer Space
    Mark Wolverton (Author)
  • HeathenerHeathener Posts: 319
    Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.

    It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.

    That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.

    However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    kinabalu said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    kjh said:

    Sandpit said:

    JohnO said:

    Latest YouGov has Tories 10% ahead

    C 41 (+1)
    Lab 31
    LD 9
    Green 8 (-1)

    Oh no, not a ten point lead for the government, when there’s so much bad news around it seems the world is going to end?
    Why do people think this is the case? It is difficult to believe it is just because Labour and the LDs are invisible
    IMO it’s a combination of an invisible opposition, and people not blaming the government for what are mostly global supply chain issues at the moment.

    Also, the FBPE mob haven’t gone away from trying to link all the bad news to leaving the EU, which conversely rallies support for the government among those in favour of leaving the EU.
    That is my view also. I can't see anything else. I think your last point is important and I think Boris is exploiting this. Although not good for the country to be divided like this it's good politics that any politician worth his salt would do sadly.
    He needs to be careful with this Forever War against the EU, though. Yes, it plays well to his Leaver base, and he needs to keep that together to win again, but he also needs to keep most of another (smaller but still important) voter group who were key to his election victory - those who truly did just want to Get Brexit Done. The brilliant campaign stunt where he drove a digger through a wall was targeted at these people, many of whom had voted Remain. They were tired of the issue and went with "Boris" so as to finish it. I can relate. I felt the same way about Brexit by then and I might have voted for him too if I were apolitical rather than a Hard Left Social Democrat. But thinking of those who did, will they be impressed if fractious Brexit negotiations become the new normal? Will they appreciate having a lot of Lord Frost in their lives? I'd say not. I reckon they'll go, "Hang on. I thought this was sorted. Was that a con? Was my vote snaffled under false pretences by a lying pig of a Tory politician? Hmm. Let's have a think about this."
    I think that's right, and it's implicit in the occasional outbreaks of 'Brexit is over, no one cares about it as an issue' from even the more..er..enthusiastic Brexiteers on here. That they're usually the ones to pick the scab into inflammation again is just one of life's little ironies.
    And the inward customs controls have still not been activated, as I repeat for the nth time (sorry). That will khave an effect on the public; how much, and how it develops with time, remain to be seen.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 20,890
    Carnyx said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    Missing the point I think.

    First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.

    This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.

    Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.

    Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.

    But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.

    And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
    I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
    On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.

    Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.

    OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
    But no-one - and not the VC - has stated that she has done anything contrary to the University's policies. It is the fact that she has views which some people disagree with which seems to be the cause of personal threats against her, threats so serious that the police have had to get involved. This is wrong. Students too have obligations and I'm pretty sure that one of them involves not threatening those who teach them. The criminal law has something to say about that too.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 90,512
    Heathener said:

    Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.

    It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.

    That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.

    However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.

    Most have been double jabbed now, better for individuals now to decide on their own level of risk and how cautious they wish to be not the government
  • Philip_ThompsonPhilip_Thompson Posts: 64,469
    Cyclefree said:

    An interesting Irish view on the EU's proposals on the NI Protocol - https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1448538052373123075?s=21

    Its interesting to think whether this proposal really is for the people of Northern Ireland and whether they support it, or not.

    The EU's negotiations in the past have already had the backing of the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, its the Unionists they need to win around. If this proposal wins the support of the UUP, DUP, TUV etc then this is absolutely a significant change and the government should accept this and put it to bed.

    If it does not, then its a failure.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,625

    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    It's interesting to consider why taxing wealth is so unpopular. I think it's a cultural aspect exemplified by Del Boy's, "This time next year we'll be millionaires!"

    That is the dream because achieving a certain threshold of wealth is seen as the way to escape the tyranny of work. There's a lot said about the importance and dignity of work when talking about people on working age benefits, but most of society aspires to join the rentier class.

    Tax wealth too highly and you make it harder for people to reach the point where they can stop working and live off their assets. The Protestant work ethic is dead.
    Note that IHT thresholds are frozen for five years now.

    With house price inflation at maybe 7-10% a year that is going to pull in a few more quid at the £1m+ mark?
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566
    Cyclefree said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sean_F said:

    Cyclefree said:



    Foxy said:

    isam said:

    Foxy said:

    In case you missed it, Labour’s shadow minister for women,
    @TaiwoOwatemi, just came out in support of the attacks on Professor Kathleen Stock.


    https://twitter.com/PaulEmbery/status/1448418546275471361?s=20

    Where does that letter support attacks?

    It just seems to point out that her role in the LGBT Alliance conflicts with the policy of her University, and also the position of the Union and Labour Party.
    I think you’ve added a letter there that is key to the whole furore
    Yes, autocorrect....

    The question is whether her role in an organisation opposing Trans rights and access is compatible with her universities policy.
    Missing the point I think.

    First, the University's Vice-Chancellor has issued a statement in support of her and condemning the attacks on her as attacks on academic freedom. More than 700 Professors and lecturers in the field of Philosophy have also signed a letter in support of her right to academic freedom, even though they may disagree with her views.

    This Labour MP is unable to say even that much and seems not to understand that freedom means the right to say things others disagree with.

    Second she admits that she knows nothing about Dr Stock's writings.

    Third she then spends most of the letter writing about a group with which Dr Stock is allied but makes some misrepresentations about it.

    But fundamentally, she seems to think that only those who support Labour policy should be free to say what they think and work without being threatened. If the University is content to have Dr Stock as one of its Professors, then that Professor should be able to be free to work not have to hide in her home and get police protection because of threats made against her. Every politician - whatever one's views on trans or anything else - should be able to say this unambiguously. It is the Rushdie issue all over again.Those with long memories will recall that a number of Labour MPs then felt unable to come to his defence and sought to excuse or justify those who attacked him.

    And for all its punchiness this MP seems unable to say this clearly but prefers to write a letter seeking to imply that it is somehow Dr Stock's fault for being attacked while admitting that she does not know anything of her views.
    I'd say it's an essential part of academic freedom that a lecturer should be able to express views that conflict with the University's stated policies.
    On the other hand, any employee has a duty to conform to the organization's policies in public. As an employee of a public body (in a professional specialist role) I had no trouble in principle in writing for professional journals, but any comment at all on current institutional policy - except possibly the most innocuous, such as remarking that a car had four wheels - was strictly verboten unless it had been trotted past line manager and if necessary higher management and/or PR. Edit: but this was usually a simple formality, and one that protected me from one or two hassles with colleagues who took grave exception.

    Also, would a lecturer not have a management/personnel role, for instance in dealing with support and contract staff, and indeed also students such as PhD students? In that case, repudiating ot challenging institutional policy is dodgy.

    OTOH someone has to discuss these things ...!
    But no-one - and not the VC - has stated that she has done anything contrary to the University's policies. It is the fact that she has views which some people disagree with which seems to be the cause of personal threats against her, threats so serious that the police have had to get involved. This is wrong. Students too have obligations and I'm pretty sure that one of them involves not threatening those who teach them. The criminal law has something to say about that too.
    Ah, excellent point for this particular case. Well taken.

    I'm still slightly hazy as to how it works more generally, but there must be some accepted provision - else, for instance, law lecturers couldn't write papers on the pros and cons of different legal policies, management lecturers on management, and so on.

  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 3,000

    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    It's interesting to consider why taxing wealth is so unpopular. I think it's a cultural aspect exemplified by Del Boy's, "This time next year we'll be millionaires!"

    That is the dream because achieving a certain threshold of wealth is seen as the way to escape the tyranny of work. There's a lot said about the importance and dignity of work when talking about people on working age benefits, but most of society aspires to join the rentier class.

    Tax wealth too highly and you make it harder for people to reach the point where they can stop working and live off their assets. The Protestant work ethic is dead.
    I pretty much agree with that. It's the UK version of the American Dream. Del Boy is a good example. But I also think that our popular media plays a part, with its unrelenting focus on celebrity culture, where people are invited to 'share' the success of their favourite wealthy celebrities, whether they be footballers, pop stars or, increasingly these days, completely vacuous but very rich nonentities.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 15,566

    Cyclefree said:

    An interesting Irish view on the EU's proposals on the NI Protocol - https://twitter.com/naomiohreally/status/1448538052373123075?s=21

    Its interesting to think whether this proposal really is for the people of Northern Ireland and whether they support it, or not.

    The EU's negotiations in the past have already had the backing of the Nationalists in Northern Ireland, its the Unionists they need to win around. If this proposal wins the support of the UUP, DUP, TUV etc then this is absolutely a significant change and the government should accept this and put it to bed.

    If it does not, then its a failure.
    What happens if only the DUP and its congeners support it, and all other parties reject it? That's what I'm not clear about.
  • FlatlanderFlatlander Posts: 1,694
    edited October 14

    Sean_F said:

    WRT the debate between taxes on wealth v taxes on income, I'd say the former are obviously more fair than the latter.

    Increasing the IHT threshold to £1m on the main residence was popular, but it was also unjustified. If you inherit a house worth say, £900,000, there is nothing at all unjust at paying £100,000 in IHT (40% of anything above £650,000).

    It's interesting to consider why taxing wealth is so unpopular. I think it's a cultural aspect exemplified by Del Boy's, "This time next year we'll be millionaires!"

    That is the dream because achieving a certain threshold of wealth is seen as the way to escape the tyranny of work. There's a lot said about the importance and dignity of work when talking about people on working age benefits, but most of society aspires to join the rentier class.

    Tax wealth too highly and you make it harder for people to reach the point where they can stop working and live off their assets. The Protestant work ethic is dead.
    Why should I be taxed extra because I have saved money rather than spending it?

    I understand the government might want to bring spending forward, but is that fair? So what if I want to retire early and spend more time doing something useful?

    It is the same argument re: social care. Those that have saved money pay more for it than those that have spent it, even if they earned the same amount over their lifetime.

    Surely taxing income (including unearned income) is fairer than hitting wealth directly?
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 44,625
    Shop anecdata:

    Local Lidl - still loads of mask wearing. Thin shelves of bottled water and for first time almost no butter. Some salady type stuff seemed to be missing or in very low numbers, but could be change of season.

    Quite a few baskets seemed to have xmas related stuff in. I think the buy early message has got through.

    I bought some xmas fancy cheese twists. Doubt they will make it to December though.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 20,232
    Heathener said:

    Tubby, there's certainly a debate to be had but I do think this country is in a perilous position. Our attitude to mask wearing and indoor gatherings is bizarre in my opinion.

    It all changed when Hancock was given the boot. Sajid Javed and Rishi Sunak, like a lot of free marketeers, put the economy and profit before safety. A certain amount of deaths is tolerable and people are expendable up to a point in their view.

    That's not an entirely facetious or unfair remark by me. As you rightly point out, there does indeed need to be a degree of expediency in our approach. We don't lockdown because of winter flu, which is a serious killer. We can't wrap the entire country in cotton wool behind closed doors for another whole winter.

    However, I refer back to my point about our careless attitude. We're playing with a virus that has shown a habit, if you'll pardon the anthropomorphism, of biting arrogant people in the ass.

    Sajid Javed pushed through vaccinations for children and boosters by pushing back, very hard, against blocking tactics by some in the JCVI.

    That doesn't strike me a complacent.
This discussion has been closed.