Howdy, Stranger!

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

Ipsos-MORI: Starmer and BoJo level on who’d make most capable PM – politicalbetting.com

135678

Comments

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    MaxPB said:

    Well, I just filled up with diesel in Sidmouth with no queue and no problems. Another delivery due at the garage tomorrow. Spoke to the owner. She said it had been absolutely mad until about 4.30 this afternoon, now it is is pretty much back to normal. Maybe we are over the worst of it.

    It's a bit like a virus, eventually it burns itself out because there's only a limited number of cars and a limited amount of space in fuel tanks.
    Before last week the amount of petrol in the average tank was somewhat less than half. Most people let it get near empty before filling. And not everyone fills to full because it’s costly to do so. Then there’s second (or third) cars that might be more seldom used.

    I suspect we have now moved beyond that for a period of time, until the system proves itself resilient once again. And then the jerry can surge is on top, probably mostly driven by people who rely on their vehicle for their livelihood.

    So there’s probably a long term increase in households’ working capital requirement for fuel. Which means the shortages are perhaps more likely to tail off rather than suddenly stop as some hope. Especially given that discretionary journeys will increase again from a very low level in recent days.
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 89,223
    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Do don't PR says an politics lecturer, as FPTP so advantages Labour, always getting more seats than their vote represents, it would be a disaster to give it up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/27/proportional-representation-labour-party-lib-dems

    It protects their privileged position as perpetual ‘unacceptable alternative’ to the Conservatives, whilst in the longer term denying their political perspective a fair shot at governing the country. FTPT appeals to the short sighted and self interested, so it is no surprise that whenever it comes to the crunch the Labour Party ducks its chance to truly transform politics in the UK.
    The argument the author correctly puts is PR means there would likely never be a Labour majority government again.

    The LDs would largely hold the balance of power, that reduces the chances of rightwing majority Conservative governments but also means near zero chance of socialist Labour governments too
    But Labour only gets a majority when it eschews its socialism. You’d have thought they’d have noticed this by now.
    Not in 1945 or 1966 it didn't, in 2017 Corbyn was just 64 seats from a socialist majority government.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    The Tories ruthlessly expel far right extremists from the party and quite right too because those extremists are not just repugnant but toxic to everyone else.

    Labour doesn't do the same for the far left and they're paying the consequence as a result.
    Like Ken Clarke :lol:
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 33,330
    eek said:

    Read the letter and you can see he is no great lose to to a party that actually wants power.

    A £15 minimum wage is completely insane...

    It's a lovely idea but that has to be a long term aspiration, not a plan for a 2023 election.
    With expected inflation, that might be a cut in real terms…
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Whereas the Tories got themselves into power by embracing the Neo-fascist right.
    The current Tory party is neo-fascist?

    OK.
    Isolationist, racist.
    It's neither of those things.
    Really? The party which appears to support turning desperate people back in the Channel?
    Immigration appears OK if the immigrants have loadsamoney. Not if they have a willingness to make life better for themselves.
    Having an actual border people have to cross is not racism, almost all countries in the world have them.
    Indeed. 'Support turning desperate people back in the Channel' is a silly criticism, since it suggests any limits on immigration is unacceptable. Some people believe that, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for a country to have rules on how many can immigrate. 'If they have a willingess to make life better for themselves' is also a silly criticism, since if that's the rule for permitting immigration any limit at all is unreasonable since people don't have a right to be able to immigrate to improve their lot. Of course everyone understands that and would want it for themselves, but nations are allowed to be more restrictive than 'Anyone can come if they want to'

    Criticism of policy not allowing more, or treating those making the attempt too harshly, making it too difficult? Those are all much more reasonable criticisms.

    Classic case of the government being wide open to attack, and yet somehow still overshooting. It's incredibly frustrating when they deserve plenty of criticism.
  • MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,337
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
    That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.

    There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
    So in short Redwood has a point.
    A lot of the companies with the poor conditions, survived by getting a stream of Eastern Europeans to basically live in the cab for a few months, until they got sick of it and went ‘home’ with what for them was a massive pile of money.

    Now that avenue is cut off for them, they realise they need to pay and treat the drivers better. Instead, they seem more interested in moaning that they can’t get long-distance drivers for minimum wage.

    There were plenty of British drivers who quit the industry as the Ts&Cs got debased over the past few years, Redwood does have a point that we should try and get people these back driving trucks, although his critics do have a point that training and testing is required, which is one of the current bottlenecks.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Whereas the Tories got themselves into power by embracing the Neo-fascist right.
    The current Tory party is neo-fascist?

    OK.
    Isolationist, racist.
    People will disagree on the latter, but how can the former be true when they just signed new international agreement? Yes it's left the EU, but it isn't a binary isolationist/non isolationist, it's a spectrum.
    A very restrictive, nationalistic agreement.
    If you say so - but it's still not isolationist behaviour.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    HYUFD said:

    IanB2 said:

    Do don't PR says an politics lecturer, as FPTP so advantages Labour, always getting more seats than their vote represents, it would be a disaster to give it up:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/27/proportional-representation-labour-party-lib-dems

    It protects their privileged position as perpetual ‘unacceptable alternative’ to the Conservatives, whilst in the longer term denying their political perspective a fair shot at governing the country. FTPT appeals to the short sighted and self interested, so it is no surprise that whenever it comes to the crunch the Labour Party ducks its chance to truly transform politics in the UK.
    The argument the author correctly puts is PR means there would likely never be a Labour majority government again.

    The LDs would largely hold the balance of power, that reduces the chances of rightwing majority Conservative governments but also means near zero chance of socialist Labour governments too
    But Labour only gets a majority when it eschews its socialism. You’d have thought they’d have noticed this by now.
    Not in 1945 or 1966 it didn't, in 2017 Corbyn was just 64 seats from a socialist majority government.
    If Corbyn didn’t have the anti semitism and terrorist baggage I reckon he’d have got more seats than May. Enough to form a government probably.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,621

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1442540887515537413?s=21

    Apparently this is the source of the resignation.

    While I doubt a £15 minimum wage can happen overnight, and in that sense McDonald is naive - I’m unsure that early days New Labour circa ‘tough spending restrictions’ is what voters, especially red wall ones, actually want. Fair enough if Reeves is doing this if she thinks it’s the right thing. But given that the electorate voted for this high spending, soon to be high tax government, I don’t see how it can be viewed as ‘centrist’.

    I rather like Andy McDonald, actually. He's one of the more sensible lefties, which is why Starmer gave him a job.

    But McDonald is wrong on this one; it's bad politics. The minimum wage for 23+ is currently £8.91. Starmer wanted him to oppose a motion raising it to £15. McDonald refused, so resigned. It's pretty clear to me that although the minimum wage is too low, to raise it in one swoop to £15 would be both economically and politically too much. So Starmer in the right here.
  • kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Whereas the Tories got themselves into power by embracing the Neo-fascist right.
    The current Tory party is neo-fascist?

    OK.
    Isolationist, racist.
    It's neither of those things.
    Really? The party which appears to support turning desperate people back in the Channel?
    Immigration appears OK if the immigrants have loadsamoney. Not if they have a willingness to make life better for themselves.
    Having an actual border people have to cross is not racism, almost all countries in the world have them.
    Indeed. 'Support turning desperate people back in the Channel' is a silly criticism, since it suggests any limits on immigration is unacceptable. Some people believe that, but it is not unusual or unreasonable for a country to have rules on how many can immigrate. 'If they have a willingess to make life better for themselves' is also a silly criticism, since if that's the rule for permitting immigration any limit at all is unreasonable since people don't have a right to be able to immigrate to improve their lot. Of course everyone understands that and would want it for themselves, but nations are allowed to be more restrictive than 'Anyone can come if they want to'

    Criticism of policy not allowing more, or treating those making the attempt too harshly, making it too difficult? Those are all much more reasonable criticisms.

    Classic case of the government being wide open to attack, and yet somehow still overshooting. It's incredibly frustrating when they deserve plenty of criticism.
    Reasonable, effective criticism is just a lot less morally satisfying than hollering about an isolationist international agreement or the fundamentally racist nature of borders…
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.

    I have been praising Rachel Reeves and tonight the person who authored the paper she was so enthusiastic about has resigned causing utter chaos

    I see in Rachel Reeves as someone nearer Blair and interesting but there is no hope I would vote labour with this chaos and open civil war
  • squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 4,491
    edited September 27

    Scott_xP said:
    Not on here he doesn't.

    Highly critical resignation letter by Andy Mcdonald of Starmer according to Sky

    McDonnell is spitting feathers too.
    It is the old story and well practised by @HYUFD choose the poll that makes your case

    Mind you tonight's RedfieldWilton includes the fuel crisis and has Boris 41/31 ahead of Starmer as best PM
    Calling Mike Smithson. Please update the thread header for balance.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    edited September 27
    If you were a HGV instructor right now, would you rather train noobs or drive HGVs yourself for silly money?

    I hope they’re paying the trainers well…
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 31,140

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    Indeed, how many orange book Lib Dems would want to continue voting yellow under PR? Why wouldn't they vote for a party that looks a lot more like the Swiss FDP along with centre and centre right ex-Tory voters? What about green party supporters who actually want to vote for environmental change, not borderline communism? There's loads of those who just tick the Green box out of despair. That's before getting into the various shades of leftism that Labour currently represents.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,621

    Nandy reveals plans to travel to Israel-Palestine in her first overseas trip as shadow foreign secretary.


    Brilliant. Just brilliant. They are obsessed.

    Incidentally, I think Starmer urgently needs a reshuffle and get Nandy up front and on TV rather than wasted on foreign affairs.

    Maybe the resignation of the shadow whose is not even well known in his own household will trigger it?

    Nandy is part of the problem. A lightweight that has been over promoted and over rated. If Starmer had some balls he would bring in Mrs Balls and all the other moderates that are wasted talent languishing on the backbenches since Jezza 2-Es Corbyn was "leader". Labour are still not serious about being in government.
    So you really don't like Nandy, and the other day you were displaying your utter contempt for Rayner. And yet you like Yvette Cooper, but not enough to use her name, preferring to refer to her via her husband. I spot a pattern.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,366
    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    CatMan said:

    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923

    The subject of the header, in fact ;)
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,559

    IanB2 said:

    Highly critical resignation letter by Andy Mcdonald of Starmer according to Sky

    You won’t know for sure until another lorry driver phones up Five Live
    Actually it has been published and reported on in those terms by Jon Craig of Sky

    And this from the BBC

    Chris Mason, political correspondent

    This is a zinger of a resignation letter, in its content and its timing.

    Yes, a man you may not have heard of resigns from a job you probably didn't know he had.

    But listen to what Andy McDonald, a man at Labour's top table until today, says about Labour's candidate for prime minister and the movement he leads.

    He claims Labour is "more divided than ever" and Sir Keir has broken the promises he made to get elected as party leader, suggesting directly that he can't be trusted.

    Political critiques within a political party are often articulated obliquely, with euphemism and understatement.

    There is none of this here and it appears slap bang in the middle of the one week of the year where so many of Labour's faithful are in the same postcode.

    It will demand an immediate response from Sir Keir Starmer.
    There’s no doubt that Labour is in deep trouble. However, this is not adding to it. This morning total Corbynistas in the shadow cabinet = 1. This evening = 0. That strikes me as a small step forward.
  • For the first time in six years there is not a single member of the far-left in the Labour shadow cabinet. The split with Corbynism was never going to be anything other than noisy and nasty. But if Labour is ever to win again it had to happen. And it pretty much has now.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923

    If you were a HGV instructor right now, would you rather train noobs or drive HGVs yourself for silly money?

    I hope they’re paying the trainers well…

    My question would be about the *examiners*

    Apparently there is a shortage of them for car tests - not especially well paid, continual re-testing to check skills. Much more money as driving instructors.....
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.

    I have been praising Rachel Reeves and tonight the person who authored the paper she was so enthusiastic about has resigned causing utter chaos

    I see in Rachel Reeves as someone nearer Blair and interesting but there is no hope I would vote labour with this chaos and open civil war
    Yes, it's certainly a shambles:

    Rachel Reeves, this morning: "Keir and I are both very clear, we have no plans to increase income tax and neither of us want to increase income tax, it is not on our agenda.... Keir and I are not planning to increase income tax, we are both very clear about that."

    Keir Starmer, this afternoon: Raising income tax is not “off the table”
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 2,620
    CatMan said:

    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923

    Extraordinary with everything that’s going on and it’s labour conference week that they’re still behind.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,621

    Scott_xP said:
    Not on here he doesn't.

    Highly critical resignation letter by Andy Mcdonald of Starmer according to Sky

    McDonnell is spitting feathers too.
    McDonnell has been spitting feathers ever since Corbyn went and Starmer defeated RLB. I'd be more worried if he wasn't spitting feathers.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 45,238
    edited September 27
    CatMan said:

    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923

    Yes and is the source of the header

    However tonight's RedfieldWilton poll has the conservatives unchanged on a 6 point lead and Boris 41/31 as best PM

    Redfield & Wilton Strategies
    2h
    Westminster Voting Intention (27 Sept):

    Conservative 41% (–)
    Labour 35% (–)
    Liberal Democrat 10% (+2)
    Green 5% (-2)
    Scottish National Party 4% (–)
    Reform UK 3% (–)
    Other 2% (–)

    Changes +/- 20 Sept
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 24,527
    edited September 27
    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Whereas the Tories got themselves into power by embracing the Neo-fascist right.
    The current Tory party is neo-fascist?

    OK.
    Isolationist, racist.
    People will disagree on the latter, but how can the former be true when they just signed new international agreement? Yes it's left the EU, but it isn't a binary isolationist/non isolationist, it's a spectrum.
    A very restrictive, nationalistic agreement.
    Is the same true for CPTPP, another restrictive, nationalistic agreement? Let me guess, only the EU is a truly good, internationalist agreement.
    Question 1. No!

    Question 2. No, better than some, but the S. American one is also good, as is the SE Asian one.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I'm sorry Britain left then EU and I'd be pleased if it rejoined.
    I hope that I'll live long enough to see that happen.
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,559
    I was also surprisingly impressed by Rachel Reeves’ speech. Her proposals seemed rather more thoughtful than the usual focus-grouped tosh.
  • https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1442540887515537413?s=21

    Apparently this is the source of the resignation.

    While I doubt a £15 minimum wage can happen overnight, and in that sense McDonald is naive - I’m unsure that early days New Labour circa ‘tough spending restrictions’ is what voters, especially red wall ones, actually want. Fair enough if Reeves is doing this if she thinks it’s the right thing. But given that the electorate voted for this high spending, soon to be high tax government, I don’t see how it can be viewed as ‘centrist’.

    I rather like Andy McDonald, actually. He's one of the more sensible lefties, which is why Starmer gave him a job.

    But McDonald is wrong on this one; it's bad politics. The minimum wage for 23+ is currently £8.91. Starmer wanted him to oppose a motion raising it to £15. McDonald refused, so resigned. It's pretty clear to me that although the minimum wage is too low, to raise it in one swoop to £15 would be both economically and politically too much. So Starmer in the right here.
    Its stupid politics by Starmer. Its 2021 now, the next election is in 2024 and the one after is in 2029.

    Inflation alone will likely take the minimum wage close to £15 by 2029. So why can't Labour formulate a policy and say "if we win the next election then we will take the minimum wage to £15" without putting a date on it. Its a policy that sounds impressive to some, but is actually pretty meaningless.

    Why the hell are Labour banging on about a £10 minimum wage when the Tories will have hit that before the next election already?

    Its just poor politics by Starmer.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 55,314
    edited September 27

    RobD said:

    kle4 said:

    RobD said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Whereas the Tories got themselves into power by embracing the Neo-fascist right.
    The current Tory party is neo-fascist?

    OK.
    Isolationist, racist.
    People will disagree on the latter, but how can the former be true when they just signed new international agreement? Yes it's left the EU, but it isn't a binary isolationist/non isolationist, it's a spectrum.
    A very restrictive, nationalistic agreement.
    Is the same true for CPTPP, another restrictive, nationalistic agreement? Let me guess, only the EU is a truly good, internationalist agreement.
    Question 1. No!

    Question 2. No, better than some, but the S. American one is also good, as is the SE Asian one.

    For the avoidance of doubt, I'm sorry Britain left then EU and I'd be pleased if it rejoined.
    I hope that I'll live long enough to see that happen.
    So how is the Tory party isolationist if it signs up for bilateral and multilateral deals like CPTPP?
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,366
    RobD said:

    CatMan said:

    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923

    The subject of the header, in fact ;)
    Ah yes, I see now. You tricked me by not focusing on the headline vote :smiley:
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,163
    SFAICS there is no possibility that Labour will run the next election on a semi-rejoin ticket as Benn suggests that should here:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698403

    but there is a potential USP for the LDs to run in the next GE on a 'Rejoin EU" or "Join EEA/EFTA" + no referendum.

    This would place them in the optimal position to get maximum votes from exactly the constituency they need, and clearly distinguish them from Labour. It would be an attack from the LDs on Lab and Tory and they should take it seriously.
  • MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    Indeed, how many orange book Lib Dems would want to continue voting yellow under PR? Why wouldn't they vote for a party that looks a lot more like the Swiss FDP along with centre and centre right ex-Tory voters? What about green party supporters who actually want to vote for environmental change, not borderline communism? There's loads of those who just tick the Green box out of despair. That's before getting into the various shades of leftism that Labour currently represents.

    Ironically, PR would probably kill off the LibDems. Labour would split into a mainstream SPD/PSOE group and a smaller Podemos/Linke one, and would probably lose votes to the Greens as well. The Tories would fracture, too: into a bigger Conservative party and a smaller FDP, while also losing votes to an AfD/Vox style party to the right. I don't see why any of that is a bad thing.

  • I was also surprisingly impressed by Rachel Reeves’ speech. Her proposals seemed rather more thoughtful than the usual focus-grouped tosh.

    Yes, there seems to be some slight indications, amongst the chaos, of some thought at last being put into policy. But it's very tentative and inconsistent, and she was pretty hopeless on the Today program this morning.
  • Scott_xP said:
    Has Starmer been photoshopped into that or is it real
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919

    Scott_xP said:
    Not on here he doesn't.

    Highly critical resignation letter by Andy Mcdonald of Starmer according to Sky

    McDonnell is spitting feathers too.
    McDonnell has been spitting feathers ever since Corbyn went and Starmer defeated RLB. I'd be more worried if he wasn't spitting feathers.
    He wanted to be an elder statesman of the party.

    https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1236852/John-McDonnell-Labour-Party-Shadow-Chancellor-Twitter-Andrew-Marr-BBC

    Whereas but not for the Corbyn years the pair of them would just have been a pair of old cranks.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,621
    MaxPB said:

    Well, I just filled up with diesel in Sidmouth with no queue and no problems. Another delivery due at the garage tomorrow. Spoke to the owner. She said it had been absolutely mad until about 4.30 this afternoon, now it is is pretty much back to normal. Maybe we are over the worst of it.

    It's a bit like a virus, eventually it burns itself out because there's only a limited number of cars and a limited amount of space in fuel tanks.
    Bloody hell, do you think 150,000 might die in petrol queues before it burns out?
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    I'm certainly not making that assumption, and nor am I interested in benefiting any particular party or ideology.
    The arguments for and against PR stand on their own merit without recourse to whether this or that party will gain or lose. But sadly, you're right. Too many on both sides take a view based on their own camp's chances.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898
    Even @bbclaurak struggling on @BBCNews to put forward a rationale of why Andy McDonald quitting Shad front bench is any kind of real blow for Starmer.

    The left have attempted to play their last hand to cause more fuss. And it’s essentially been met with shrugs. Ouch.

    https://twitter.com/clarelouisekc/status/1442541219939192834

    “I told him ‘I’m going’ and it’s like no-one gave a fuck!” https://twitter.com/mocent0/status/1442554934780743680/photo/1
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    TIG/Change UK - a new dawn as broken, has it not? I feel refreshed!
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.

    I have been praising Rachel Reeves and tonight the person who authored the paper she was so enthusiastic about has resigned causing utter chaos

    I see in Rachel Reeves as someone nearer Blair and interesting but there is no hope I would vote labour with this chaos and open civil war
    Yes, it's certainly a shambles:

    Rachel Reeves, this morning: "Keir and I are both very clear, we have no plans to increase income tax and neither of us want to increase income tax, it is not on our agenda.... Keir and I are not planning to increase income tax, we are both very clear about that."

    Keir Starmer, this afternoon: Raising income tax is not “off the table”
    In fairness, you can have no plans to do something but still concede that it might happen. Just.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923
    Farooq said:

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
    It's in the civil service papers releases via Kew. Essentially, gentle(ish) pressure was placed on various large companies not to place factories in the wrong places. There was a big lot of this around the time of re-armament, but it was going on up til the 70s, at least.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131

    Scott_xP said:
    Has Starmer been photoshopped into that or is it real
    Is it Ronald or Andy who resigned?
  • ThomasNasheThomasNashe Posts: 3,559

    For the first time in six years there is not a single member of the far-left in the Labour shadow cabinet. The split with Corbynism was never going to be anything other than noisy and nasty. But if Labour is ever to win again it had to happen. And it pretty much has now.

    Yep, necessary but not sufficient.
  • CatManCatMan Posts: 1,366
    If you want some good news we've been getting shit loads of wind power

    https://electricinsights.co.uk/#/dashboard?_k=3d1om0

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,337
    edited September 27

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1442540887515537413?s=21

    Apparently this is the source of the resignation.

    While I doubt a £15 minimum wage can happen overnight, and in that sense McDonald is naive - I’m unsure that early days New Labour circa ‘tough spending restrictions’ is what voters, especially red wall ones, actually want. Fair enough if Reeves is doing this if she thinks it’s the right thing. But given that the electorate voted for this high spending, soon to be high tax government, I don’t see how it can be viewed as ‘centrist’.

    I rather like Andy McDonald, actually. He's one of the more sensible lefties, which is why Starmer gave him a job.

    But McDonald is wrong on this one; it's bad politics. The minimum wage for 23+ is currently £8.91. Starmer wanted him to oppose a motion raising it to £15. McDonald refused, so resigned. It's pretty clear to me that although the minimum wage is too low, to raise it in one swoop to £15 would be both economically and politically too much. So Starmer in the right here.
    Its stupid politics by Starmer. Its 2021 now, the next election is in 2024 and the one after is in 2029.

    Inflation alone will likely take the minimum wage close to £15 by 2029. So why can't Labour formulate a policy and say "if we win the next election then we will take the minimum wage to £15" without putting a date on it. Its a policy that sounds impressive to some, but is actually pretty meaningless.

    Why the hell are Labour banging on about a £10 minimum wage when the Tories will have hit that before the next election already?

    Its just poor politics by Starmer.
    Even better, the fact of the minimum wage will be much less of an issue in 2024 and 2029 - as the ending of FoM exerts pay rises by market forces, rather than government diktat, and the minimum wage becomes a floor rather than a ceiling, as we see in many industries today.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 11,516
    kle4 said:

    CatMan said:

    Winner of today's "He's right but he shouldn't say it award"

    "End to freedom of movement behind UK fuel crisis, says Merkel’s likely successor"
    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/sep/27/end-freedom-movement-uk-fuel-crisis-german-politician-olaf-scholz-hgv-driver-shortage

    "The centre-left politician in pole position to replace Angela Merkel as German chancellor has pinpointed the decision to bring an end to freedom of movement with Europe after Brexit as the reason for the British petrol crisis.

    Olaf Scholz, who is seeking to form a coalition government after the SPD emerged as the biggest party in Germany’s federal elections, said he hoped Boris Johnson would be able to deal with the consequences of the UK’s exit from the EU."

    I'm confused, genuinely - why is he even talking about the UK right now?
    A French paper, Liberation, recently ran an entire front page about this ‘Brexit chaos’

    Do not under-estimate how angered and humiliated they feel, because of AUKUS. Yes it’s mainly in Paris, but allied pro-European politicos will share the alarm and pique at an apparent brexit-related foreign policy coup, which advances the UK’s interests, and sidelines the EU
  • algarkirk said:

    SFAICS there is no possibility that Labour will run the next election on a semi-rejoin ticket as Benn suggests that should here:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698403

    but there is a potential USP for the LDs to run in the next GE on a 'Rejoin EU" or "Join EEA/EFTA" + no referendum.

    This would place them in the optimal position to get maximum votes from exactly the constituency they need, and clearly distinguish them from Labour. It would be an attack from the LDs on Lab and Tory and they should take it seriously.

    I actually proposed that a couple of days ago as a clear vote winner for lib dems in remain seats but are they brave enough
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    edited September 27

    Scott_xP said:
    Not on here he doesn't.

    Highly critical resignation letter by Andy Mcdonald of Starmer according to Sky

    McDonnell is spitting feathers too.
    It is the old story and well practised by @HYUFD choose the poll that makes your case

    Mind you tonight's RedfieldWilton includes the fuel crisis and has Boris 41/31 ahead of Starmer as best PM
    Calling Mike Smithson. Please update the thread header for balance.
    Just quoting the rest of the IPSOS poll, rather than the only good bit for Labour, would be more balanced - and let their supporters down lightly
  • Evening all :)

    Still going through my cold, lots of coughing and haven't been sleeping too well. Hope it will pass soon, in the meantime I am grateful to be able to work from home.

    William Hague has written a very interesting article about how Keir Starmer can help Labour become the UK's equivalent of the German SPD. Well worth reading and provides some interesting insight on "under the hood changes" that Starmer is making, that I have commented on before.

    I would also hope that most members will be happy to agree that Starmer has done a fantastic job tackling anti-Semitism and putting it very much in the past, with the independent complaints process also now being implemented as recommended by the EHRC.

    I still think Keir Starmer is underrated and undervalued - and if the public tires of Johnson, he will be the perfect antidote. But it is a big if.

    As for betting, I have bet on a Labour poll lead again by the end of this year.
  • ClippPClippP Posts: 860
    HYUFD said:

    The argument the author correctly puts is PR means there would likely never be a Labour majority government again.

    The LDs would largely hold the balance of power, that reduces the chances of rightwing majority Conservative governments but also means near zero chance of socialist Labour governments too

    I have the feeling that most of the country would be extremely pleased if it could be sure that there was no chance of either a rightwing majority Conservative government or a socialist Labour government ever again. I think old HY is getting there at last.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210

    Farooq said:

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
    It's in the civil service papers releases via Kew. Essentially, gentle(ish) pressure was placed on various large companies not to place factories in the wrong places. There was a big lot of this around the time of re-armament, but it was going on up til the 70s, at least.
    Ok, Kew is a long way away, so if you know of any write-ups I'd be interested in reading more.
    Interesting if true. And very, very wrong.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    edited September 27
    Sandpit said:

    https://twitter.com/ayeshahazarika/status/1442540887515537413?s=21

    Apparently this is the source of the resignation.

    While I doubt a £15 minimum wage can happen overnight, and in that sense McDonald is naive - I’m unsure that early days New Labour circa ‘tough spending restrictions’ is what voters, especially red wall ones, actually want. Fair enough if Reeves is doing this if she thinks it’s the right thing. But given that the electorate voted for this high spending, soon to be high tax government, I don’t see how it can be viewed as ‘centrist’.

    I rather like Andy McDonald, actually. He's one of the more sensible lefties, which is why Starmer gave him a job.

    But McDonald is wrong on this one; it's bad politics. The minimum wage for 23+ is currently £8.91. Starmer wanted him to oppose a motion raising it to £15. McDonald refused, so resigned. It's pretty clear to me that although the minimum wage is too low, to raise it in one swoop to £15 would be both economically and politically too much. So Starmer in the right here.
    Its stupid politics by Starmer. Its 2021 now, the next election is in 2024 and the one after is in 2029.

    Inflation alone will likely take the minimum wage close to £15 by 2029. So why can't Labour formulate a policy and say "if we win the next election then we will take the minimum wage to £15" without putting a date on it. Its a policy that sounds impressive to some, but is actually pretty meaningless.

    Why the hell are Labour banging on about a £10 minimum wage when the Tories will have hit that before the next election already?

    Its just poor politics by Starmer.
    Even better, the fact of the minimum wage will be much less of an issue in 2024 and 2029 - as the ending of FoM exerts pay rises by market forces, rather than government diktat, and the minimum wage becomes a floor rather than a ceiling, as we see in many industries today.
    Labour probably only brought in the minimum wage in the first place because they knew they were going to floor wages for low paid workers by flooding the market with cheap labour, and didn't want to take the piss too much
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.

    I have been praising Rachel Reeves and tonight the person who authored the paper she was so enthusiastic about has resigned causing utter chaos

    I see in Rachel Reeves as someone nearer Blair and interesting but there is no hope I would vote labour with this chaos and open civil war
    Yes, it's certainly a shambles:

    Rachel Reeves, this morning: "Keir and I are both very clear, we have no plans to increase income tax and neither of us want to increase income tax, it is not on our agenda.... Keir and I are not planning to increase income tax, we are both very clear about that."

    Keir Starmer, this afternoon: Raising income tax is not “off the table”
    In fairness, you can have no plans to do something but still concede that it might happen. Just.
    The contrast with the message discipline of New Labour is stark. No way they would have allowed the Leader and a senior Shadow Cabinet Minister to contradict each other on a major policy area. Or indeed on even the slightest peripheral issue. Starmer's operation still looks very amateurish, despite some progress.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,163
    Farooq said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    I'm certainly not making that assumption, and nor am I interested in benefiting any particular party or ideology.
    The arguments for and against PR stand on their own merit without recourse to whether this or that party will gain or lose. But sadly, you're right. Too many on both sides take a view based on their own camp's chances.
    In general whether the centre left or centre right has a majority will tend to depend on whether the LDs are seen (as now) as centre left or (as oft times) centre right.

    ATM it suits the Tories to have no friends on the centre right as it means their vote is less split; though of course if they lose, they lose bigly because no-one is going to be their friend in a NOM parliament. Which is why, however useless Labour is (!!) SKS has a 40%+ chance of being next PM.

  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898
    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,337
    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Kay Burley, always one to pour fuel on the fire.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 4,163
    edited September 27

    algarkirk said:

    SFAICS there is no possibility that Labour will run the next election on a semi-rejoin ticket as Benn suggests that should here:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-58698403

    but there is a potential USP for the LDs to run in the next GE on a 'Rejoin EU" or "Join EEA/EFTA" + no referendum.

    This would place them in the optimal position to get maximum votes from exactly the constituency they need, and clearly distinguish them from Labour. It would be an attack from the LDs on Lab and Tory and they should take it seriously.

    I actually proposed that a couple of days ago as a clear vote winner for lib dems in remain seats but are they brave enough
    QTWTAI I don't know but we shall find out!

    And I would add that the 50% or so of voters who absolutely would not vote for them if they stood on that platform had more or less zero chance of voting for them if they didn't. They, arguably, have something to gain and little to lose.

  • ClippP said:

    HYUFD said:

    The argument the author correctly puts is PR means there would likely never be a Labour majority government again.

    The LDs would largely hold the balance of power, that reduces the chances of rightwing majority Conservative governments but also means near zero chance of socialist Labour governments too

    I have the feeling that most of the country would be extremely pleased if it could be sure that there was no chance of either a rightwing majority Conservative government or a socialist Labour government ever again. I think old HY is getting there at last.
    And yet when offered the choice of electoral reform the public rejected it by a landslide two to one.

    Yes I know the electoral reform on offer wasn't PR, but the arguments made both for and against it were, with those in favour of PR urging a Yes vote, and those against a No vote. Which is why I voted No, I'd have no issues with AV itself but I wanted the argument used to lose.
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Farooq said:

    isam said:

    MaxPB said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    “🇬🇧 Labour conference delegates just voted by 70% to 30% to say that the United Kingdom's defence pact with Australia & America is "a dangerous move that will undermine world peace". Starmer supported it.”

    https://twitter.com/goodwinmj/status/1442517137252257804?s=21

    Does Conference instead think we should align with Russia and China, Iran and Palestine?
    Palestine. Palestine. PALESTINE!
    To be honest they need a Neil Kinnock moment and divest themselves of this non electable left
    Well one of them just quit!

    Only from the Shadow Cabinet. They need removing from the Party altogether.
    FPTP is the pressure keeping the extremists in both main parties.
    Rather than giving them enormous leverage in the post-election haggles in smoke-free rooms.
    Imagine into how many pieces the left would splinter under PR. Labour would be idiots to back it.
    Yes, the proponents of PR so often make the dumb error of assuming that the parties would remain as they are, and that voters would vote as they currently do. So they add up the current Labour, LibDem and Green vote shares and, hey presto!, a 'progressive' majority.
    Indeed, how many orange book Lib Dems would want to continue voting yellow under PR? Why wouldn't they vote for a party that looks a lot more like the Swiss FDP along with centre and centre right ex-Tory voters? What about green party supporters who actually want to vote for environmental change, not borderline communism? There's loads of those who just tick the Green box out of despair. That's before getting into the various shades of leftism that Labour currently represents.

    Ironically, PR would probably kill off the LibDems. Labour would split into a mainstream SPD/PSOE group and a smaller Podemos/Linke one, and would probably lose votes to the Greens as well. The Tories would fracture, too: into a bigger Conservative party and a smaller FDP, while also losing votes to an AfD/Vox style party to the right. I don't see why any of that is a bad thing.

    Indeed. I reacted with some confusion when it was said earlier that it would be bad for the Lib Dems. I'm still unconvinced, but you're 100% who even cares? We can live without the Lib Dems, or any other particular party. As long as there's plenty of choice for voters.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131
    edited September 27
    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20
  • isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,689
    moonshine said:

    CatMan said:

    Errr, has this been posted yet?

    Westminster voting intention:

    CON: 39% (-2)
    LAB: 36% (+6)
    LDEM: 9% (-4)

    via @IpsosMORI
    , 17 - 23 September,
    Chgs. w/ Aug

    https://twitter.com/BritainElects/status/1442471664495697923

    Extraordinary with everything that’s going on and it’s labour conference week that they’re still behind.
    The first day of fieldwork was on the 17th - 10 days ago!

    The newspapers then were concerned with AUKUS and imminent reductions in travel restrictions.

    https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-the-papers-58591785
  • FarooqFarooq Posts: 1,210
    Sandpit said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Kay Burley, always one to pour fuel on the fire.
    She's just reporting what the Conservative council leader has said 🤷‍♂️
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 773
    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923
    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
    It's in the civil service papers releases via Kew. Essentially, gentle(ish) pressure was placed on various large companies not to place factories in the wrong places. There was a big lot of this around the time of re-armament, but it was going on up til the 70s, at least.
    Ok, Kew is a long way away, so if you know of any write-ups I'd be interested in reading more.
    Interesting if true. And very, very wrong.
    I had some references in my piles of stuff - will try and find them.

    It is on-going feature of the permanent portion of government that it think it can control stuff like this.

    For example - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16121783-500-trouble-in-paradise actually turned out to be that the Foreign Office *bribed* the government of the Virgin Islands to stop the project. The Virgin Islands government got into a spot of local bother over that. The FO had the idea that this would make the French happy (Ariane, competitor etc) and the Trade & Industry lot concurred.

    It all came out in Private Eye, IIRC.
  • isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    Shambles

    Boris must hardly believe his luck
  • isam said:

    Scott_xP said:
    Has Starmer been photoshopped into that or is it real
    Is it Ronald or Andy who resigned?
    Andy McDonald = pound-shop Jeremy Corbyn.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898
    Fuel crisis latest: Whitehall source says govt will mobilise army as precaution but sense is won't be needed/panic buying will subside b4 army able to make difference 1/
    https://twitter.com/BethRigby/status/1442558307420495880
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 31,341
    For those who think the fuel crisis is fabricated there are some questions.

    So you think there is a shortage of tanker drivers. If not then it is reasonable to think the fuel crisis is fabricated.

    If you do think that there is a shortage of tanker drivers then you must accept that that would mean less fuel delivered to petrol stations. If less fuel is delivered to petrol stations then there will be a shortage.

    If there is a shortage, and you don't know when it will be alleviated, then it is rational to try to get petrol.

    Hence not panicking but rational.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,491
    https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/27/business/economy/china-electricity.html

    Power cuts and even blackouts have slowed or closed factories across China in recent days, adding a new threat to the country’s slowing economy and potentially further snarling global supply chains ahead of the busy Christmas shopping season in the West.
  • darkage said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
    No.

    Morons with full tanks and full jerry cans who already had a half-full tank and were at no risk of running out didn't have common sense. They were selfish twunts.

    Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre may cause mayhem - the mayhem then happening isn't vindication for shouting fire.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 34,337
    edited September 27
    isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    The company that regularly makes lists of companies where people like to work, that spends more on training and development than anyone else in the sector, that sponsors staff through university, and supports entrepreneurs in setting up their own franchised businesses. Horrible behaviour the lot of it, boycott them!

    Edit: Hang on, does that banner say £15 on it? The same £15 that just led to his shadow minister resigning? 😂
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898
    ...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 3,995

    Evening all :)

    Still going through my cold, lots of coughing and haven't been sleeping too well. Hope it will pass soon, in the meantime I am grateful to be able to work from home.

    William Hague has written a very interesting article about how Keir Starmer can help Labour become the UK's equivalent of the German SPD. Well worth reading and provides some interesting insight on "under the hood changes" that Starmer is making, that I have commented on before.

    I would also hope that most members will be happy to agree that Starmer has done a fantastic job tackling anti-Semitism and putting it very much in the past, with the independent complaints process also now being implemented as recommended by the EHRC.

    I still think Keir Starmer is underrated and undervalued - and if the public tires of Johnson, he will be the perfect antidote. But it is a big if.

    As for betting, I have bet on a Labour poll lead again by the end of this year.

    Seems likely. Btw, should you have run while still with cold? I did once after lemsip etc and felt dreadful after.
  • £29k minimum wage? Where will that leave those already earning that? Wanting £40k, £45k? Absolute lunacy. I will NEVER vote Labour, but even I had warmed slightly to Angela over her Times interview - then she goes down the ‘scum’ route, and Andy goes down the economically illiterate route. They are still clueless.

    I have been praising Rachel Reeves and tonight the person who authored the paper she was so enthusiastic about has resigned causing utter chaos

    I see in Rachel Reeves as someone nearer Blair and interesting but there is no hope I would vote labour with this chaos and open civil war
    Yes, it's certainly a shambles:

    Rachel Reeves, this morning: "Keir and I are both very clear, we have no plans to increase income tax and neither of us want to increase income tax, it is not on our agenda.... Keir and I are not planning to increase income tax, we are both very clear about that."

    Keir Starmer, this afternoon: Raising income tax is not “off the table”
    In fairness, you can have no plans to do something but still concede that it might happen. Just.
    The contrast with the message discipline of New Labour is stark. No way they would have allowed the Leader and a senior Shadow Cabinet Minister to contradict each other on a major policy area. Or indeed on even the slightest peripheral issue. Starmer's operation still looks very amateurish, despite some progress.
    I don't know why politicians bother with all this cautious arse-covering language these days anyway. Just categorically state you're not going to raise income tax. Then simply do the opposite when you're in power. Who actually gives a fig anymore? Boris gets away with that stuff all the time.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 96,701
    edited September 27
    Sir Keir Starmer does have form for standing up for the little guys taking on McDonalds, and winning.

    Or have we all forgotten the McLibel case(s)?
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 773

    darkage said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
    No.

    Morons with full tanks and full jerry cans who already had a half-full tank and were at no risk of running out didn't have common sense. They were selfish twunts.

    Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre may cause mayhem - the mayhem then happening isn't vindication for shouting fire.
    It doesn't honestly matter who started it. It is almost irrellevant. It is impossible to deny that people were acting entirely rationally in trying to get fuel. They correctly percieved that there was a panic; so demand would increase at a point where supply was obviously constrained. If people need to use their cars, then it was the right thing for them to do.

    Pretty much the same thing that happened with the hoarding of toilet paper and pasta last year.
  • isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    Shambles

    Boris must hardly believe his luck

    Demanding that a massively profitable multinational corporation pay its staff £15 an hour is very different to raising the minimum wage at all businesses of all sizes and all other entities by 50% in one go.

  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 20,239
    TOPPING said:

    For those who think the fuel crisis is fabricated there are some questions.

    So you think there is a shortage of tanker drivers. If not then it is reasonable to think the fuel crisis is fabricated.

    If you do think that there is a shortage of tanker drivers then you must accept that that would mean less fuel delivered to petrol stations. If less fuel is delivered to petrol stations then there will be a shortage.

    If there is a shortage, and you don't know when it will be alleviated, then it is rational to try to get petrol.

    Hence not panicking but rational.

    It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. People are panic buying because they know that other people will panic buy.

    I filled up on Friday morning when without this nonsense I would have filled up on Friday afternoon. It will last me until the end of October. I don't expect to have any problems filling up then.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 2,621
    Isn't life confusing?

    When Tories want to hike the wages of working people, it's excellent news and a welcome corrective to all those years when wages were undercut by our membership of the EU and FOM.

    When Labour wants to hike the wages of working people, it's extreme socialism, if not communism, in action, and how on earth are they going to afford it?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 38,491
    isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer

    Has he confused it with a protest against Andy McDonald?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 15,898
    John Bercow is talking at a fringe event at Labour conference - he just addressed the room as ‘comrades'
    https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1442560006704939012
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 8,737
    darkage said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
    I sincerely hope you are being sarcastic.

    I'd like to see voters having to take a 10 minute test to establish their understanding of 1. Bayes's theorem 2. positive feedback loops* and 3. games theory :a. prisoner's dilemma and b. what is meant by zero sum. No pass, no vote.

    *hint: this does not mean people saying nice stuff about you.
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,677

    Isn't life confusing?

    When Tories want to hike the wages of working people, it's excellent news and a welcome corrective to all those years when wages were undercut by our membership of the EU and FOM.

    When Labour wants to hike the wages of working people, it's extreme socialism, if not communism, in action, and how on earth are they going to afford it?

    Hah! Our PB Tories are such a fascinating (as well as thick and ugly) species!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
    No.

    Morons with full tanks and full jerry cans who already had a half-full tank and were at no risk of running out didn't have common sense. They were selfish twunts.

    Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre may cause mayhem - the mayhem then happening isn't vindication for shouting fire.
    It doesn't honestly matter who started it. It is almost irrellevant. It is impossible to deny that people were acting entirely rationally in trying to get fuel. They correctly percieved that there was a panic; so demand would increase at a point where supply was obviously constrained. If people need to use their cars, then it was the right thing for them to do.

    Pretty much the same thing that happened with the hoarding of toilet paper and pasta last year.
    When there is a rush, be at the front, not those trampled behind.

    The sailors of the Arctic were sensible - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Arctic_disaster

    The sailors of the Titanic were mugs....
  • murali_smurali_s Posts: 2,677

    isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    Shambles

    Boris must hardly believe his luck
    I don't get it? What is the shambles? I know your Tories are not the brightest peas in the pod but am I missing something?
  • FF43FF43 Posts: 12,877
    edited September 27
    moonshine said:

    Sandpit said:

    moonshine said:

    Is it not the case that lots of qualified hgv drivers have switched to driving local deliveries as the conditions are better?
    That’s the anecdotal evidence - some have moved to more sociable jobs driving smaller vehicles locally, and others have taken better pay offers to switch company on the HGVs.

    There’s apparently a wide variation in terms and conditions across the industry, for example some companies insist you sleep in your cab, while others cover a travel inn when away from home.
    So in short Redwood has a point.
    Maybe the UK should learn from the EU which generally has better conditions for lorry drivers than the UK AND Freedom of Movement.

    Lorry drivers benefit from freedom of movement for reasons that ought to be obvious, but apparently aren't. Lorry drivers, quite literally need freedom to move.
  • GallowgateGallowgate Posts: 16,544
    On student loans.

    Let's say you're an average student paying £9,250 per year for 3 years. You'll leave university with a tuition debt of £27,750.

    As you're the average student you don't have mummy and daddy to help you so you take the maximum maintenance loan as well of £9,488 a year. You therefore leave university with a maintenance debt of £28,464.

    Your total debt for a three year course is £56,214.

    Here's the crux, that most people probably don't realise, you need to earn at least £53,000 per year every year for 30 years to pay it off before the cut off.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 68,919
    Scott_xP said:

    John Bercow is talking at a fringe event at Labour conference - he just addressed the room as ‘comrades'
    https://twitter.com/joncstone/status/1442560006704939012

    That's a bit try hard. Just relax John, you don't need to over do it.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 25,872

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
    It's in the civil service papers releases via Kew. Essentially, gentle(ish) pressure was placed on various large companies not to place factories in the wrong places. There was a big lot of this around the time of re-armament, but it was going on up til the 70s, at least.
    Ok, Kew is a long way away, so if you know of any write-ups I'd be interested in reading more.
    Interesting if true. And very, very wrong.
    I had some references in my piles of stuff - will try and find them.

    It is on-going feature of the permanent portion of government that it think it can control stuff like this.

    For example - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16121783-500-trouble-in-paradise actually turned out to be that the Foreign Office *bribed* the government of the Virgin Islands to stop the project. The Virgin Islands government got into a spot of local bother over that. The FO had the idea that this would make the French happy (Ariane, competitor etc) and the Trade & Industry lot concurred.

    It all came out in Private Eye, IIRC.
    Beal Aerospace... haven't heard that name in a long time. Don't SpaceX use the engine test rig they built in Texas?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 18,923

    Farooq said:

    Farooq said:

    I hate to say it but Redwood's right.

    There's over a million people out there with HGV licences. And for those that don't have one it only takes a few weeks to train a new recruit to take the test. So yes, offer pay and conditions people want and the vacancies will be filled.

    Improving pay and conditions is the only viable (and decent) solution. Its a shame so many on the left now find suggesting good pay and conditions to be an anathema.
    Today's Conservative Party mantra: Simplistic solutions for simplistic followers. The real world of business and employment is a little more complex than this Philip. You, like Redwood are putting your head in the sand because you don't want to admit that the Government should have seen this coming. Brexit could have been managed so these problems did not exacerbate pre-existing problems, but we have a PM who likes simple ideas he can put into slogans on the back of a fag packet to provide red meat for his simple minded fanbois.
    I'm sorry but as a Thatcherite free market liberal Conservative I don't think its the government's job to tell business how to operate or "fix" problems in the market.

    To have a free market then the market has to be allowed to fail sometimes, otherwise you end up with moral hazard and freeriding within the market. If companies refuse to pay a decent wage to HGV drivers (of which we have many more times more than enough qualified) then they should be allowed to fail.

    If companies refuse to pay for transportation a decent enough rate to get their stock moved around, they too can fail.

    A few days of mass hysteria about fuel because is hardly the miner's strike now is it? In the eighties it was overly-coddled unions that were warping the market that needed sorting out, now its overly-coddled companies that feel they have a divine right to fill vacancies for shitty jobs at minimum wage that need sorting out. Either way, let the market do its thing - even if it causes some hardship or disruption from time to time.
    Did you know that, since before WWII, it was government policy to prevent (as much as possible) other industry developing in the coal mining regions of the UK?

    They were worried that no-one would put up with the conditions down the pits, if there were other jobs about.
    Any reliable sources for this?
    Not that I'm calling you unreliable, but, well, you know.
    It's in the civil service papers releases via Kew. Essentially, gentle(ish) pressure was placed on various large companies not to place factories in the wrong places. There was a big lot of this around the time of re-armament, but it was going on up til the 70s, at least.
    Ok, Kew is a long way away, so if you know of any write-ups I'd be interested in reading more.
    Interesting if true. And very, very wrong.
    I had some references in my piles of stuff - will try and find them.

    It is on-going feature of the permanent portion of government that it think it can control stuff like this.

    For example - https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16121783-500-trouble-in-paradise actually turned out to be that the Foreign Office *bribed* the government of the Virgin Islands to stop the project. The Virgin Islands government got into a spot of local bother over that. The FO had the idea that this would make the French happy (Ariane, competitor etc) and the Trade & Industry lot concurred.

    It all came out in Private Eye, IIRC.
    Beal Aerospace... haven't heard that name in a long time. Don't SpaceX use the engine test rig they built in Texas?
    Yes indeed, and they still do.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 4,689
    darkage said:

    darkage said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Surrey on brink of declaring a major incident tonight.

    Key workers would be prioritised for fuel on the forecourt and electric vehicles brought in to help social, care and emergency workers move around the county.

    https://twitter.com/KayBurley/status/1442550994857046019

    Wow. Assuming this is true; it turns out the idiots queing up for fuel for hours on end had some foresight.

    A case of ancient common sense triumphing over the intellectuals and experts telling everyone that there was nothing to worry about.
    No.

    Morons with full tanks and full jerry cans who already had a half-full tank and were at no risk of running out didn't have common sense. They were selfish twunts.

    Falsely shouting fire in a crowded theatre may cause mayhem - the mayhem then happening isn't vindication for shouting fire.
    It doesn't honestly matter who started it. It is almost irrellevant. It is impossible to deny that people were acting entirely rationally in trying to get fuel. They correctly percieved that there was a panic; so demand would increase at a point where supply was obviously constrained. If people need to use their cars, then it was the right thing for them to do.

    Pretty much the same thing that happened with the hoarding of toilet paper and pasta last year.
    I don't think there was much panic-buying at supermarkets last year. What happened is that there was a sudden increase in demand for food from supermarkets because all the restaurants closed, and people took the sensible precaution to do one large shop every week or so, instead of several smaller shops more often.

    The situation with fuel is very different. I'd be very interested to see any statistics on daily deliveries of fuel made by each refinery, to see if there was a deficit overall, or if it was simply a case of not having the delivery capacity to react to random local fluctuations in demand.
  • isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    Shambles

    Boris must hardly believe his luck

    Demanding that a massively profitable multinational corporation pay its staff £15 an hour is very different to raising the minimum wage at all businesses of all sizes and all other entities by 50% in one go.

    You think all McDonald's franchises are multinationals?

    Demanding that a company increases its pay by 50% in one go is very different to potentially raising the minimum wage equitably for all within the next eight years.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 10,425

    Prof. Christina Pagel
    @chrischirp
    ·
    4h
    hate to say it, but the Labour conference looks kind of super spready... 4 days of rooms this full plus evening drinking in the bar... and not a mask in sight.

    ===

    Brighton numbers will be interesting in a week.

    Do you think she really “hates to say it” ?
  • Hang on.

    That Starmer/McDonalds tweet is from November 2019.
  • isamisam Posts: 38,131

    isam said:

    I'm lovin it!

    Keir Starmer
    @Keir_Starmer



    Proud to stand in solidarity with McDonald’s workers in Wandsworth.

    They are standing up to corporate injustice, low pay and the exploitation of workers.

    Please support them. #McStrike

    https://twitter.com/Keir_Starmer/status/1194204454448500738?s=20

    Oh dear.

    Oh dear oh dear oh dear.
    Shambles

    Boris must hardly believe his luck

    Demanding that a massively profitable multinational corporation pay its staff £15 an hour is very different to raising the minimum wage at all businesses of all sizes and all other entities by 50% in one go.

    Having someone called McDonald quit because Sir Keir refused to back £15 ph, whilst there are pictures of him demanding £15ph for McDonalds is fun though
Sign In or Register to comment.