Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
It's really always been politicaldiscussiondotcom since I've been here.
As for putting money on Johnson going, well the question is what odds and by when? I'd not put money on him going before May, but sometime this year I'd be tempted by it. On Labour winning the next GE? It'd have to be generous, they are doing well now but it is a long way to come from behind.
If Johnson lost a VONC from Tory MP and refused to quit Labour could move a VONC in HMG in which Tory MPs would abstain.
To be fair, Starmer should've seriously considered laying down a VONC in the House anyway. The timing is hard to judge, and it would almost certainly be lost, but just putting his money where his mouth is would've been a boost to Labour morale I think.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The polling, when combined with the leader ratings, indicates two things, surely. That BJ has become less popular is self-evident. But it also looks now as if, slowly but surely, Starmer is becoming more popular, and fewer ex-Tories are sliding towards Lib Dem/Greens. BJ's demise won't surprise anybody. But the latter will surprise those who wrote Starmer off, and worry quite a few Tories.
Amazing to think that, just six months ago, most distinguished commentators had written Starmer off as a dud. Some (e.g. me, for example) always argued that he should be given at least two years to prove himself (or not). Still two months to go to that milestone.
How commentators have 'rated' Starmer at various points has really exposed a lot of punditry as just filling a vacuum. He was overpriced early on simply for not being Jeremy Corbyn - when anyone could see Labour had deeper issues to resolve than just getting rid of a toxic leader. Then greatly underpriced when he essentially had the same strengths and weaknesses, had by and large done some of the most awkward stuff to get the party back to sense, and though was lagging in the polls due to the vaccine bounce that slowly unwinded, his leader ratings were pretty similar to David Cameron's. Of course his current rise in popularity is largely due to the contrast with his opponent (and the gifts he gives him to do things that showcase his strengths) but that's because he's neither an early period Blair or a dud. He's pretty good in a reliable kind of way. And that's sometimes all you need. Blair may be the exception among successful opposition leaders in enjoying huge popularity - in part because he didn't arrive in a leadership contest after a defeat and was very much able to sell himself with little baggage. Cameron tried to do a Tory version but could never convincingly pull off the trick because he didn't really believe it and didn't ultimately want to challenge the more antediluvian elements in his party over core beliefs on the big issues. Thatcher had mediocre ratings in parliament before winning. The truth is, we want narrative stories of heroes and villains, genius and stupidity, so depending on the polls he was either useless or doing great (even while not ahead), but really he was doing roughly fine, gets the fundamentals right and whether or not he becomes will largely depend on the state of the government. And they look in real trouble because they've paddled one way to create a coalition of voters Johnson may now have blown up, and seem unable to properly course-correct because their whole strategy involved writing off swathes of the electorate by design to appeal to a plurality who may not be quite as loyal and defined by culture wars and Brexit as they'd like.
I commend my Towering Inferno metaphor to the House. Boris started off in the 150th floor penthouse and has descended to the basement. SKS is a boring accountant who has never left his office on the 7th floor. Simply by staying put he is now a neck-breaking height above Boris, without having to do anything
Actually he has done something. His HoC speech yesterday was masterly.
So who is OJ Simpson in this metaphor?
God, I'd forgotten he was in it. Chief Security Officer, probably no DS equivalent
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
SKS as next PM is value. Essentially a bet on nothing changing, which tends to be the value bet. Punters overestimate the liklihood of change.
That's a 12% swing from Conservative to Labour on UNS and in marginal seats and with tactical voting, I would think any Conservative MP facing a Labour challenge and with a majority vulnerable to a 15-18% swing will be worried.
The CON-LD swing is a more modest 4.5% but with tactical voting by Labour supporters that could put any Conservative facing a Lib Dem challenger and having a majority vulnerable to a 10% swing could be under threat.
My personal view is Com Res has overcooked the Labour number slightly and undercooked the LD number slightly so a 9-10 point Labour lead with the LDs in low double digits looks more reasonable.
The real jeopardy for the Tories is the likely renaissance of tactical voting. Would be toxic for them even under the gerrymandered new boundaries which give them a ludicrous safety net.
The boundaries are not gerrymandered - they were prepared by an independent commission. Of course they took representations from parties but that was only one factor in their analysis
True, plus the fact that the numbers on which the current boundaries are based are 22 years old.
If Johnson lost a VONC from Tory MP and refused to quit Labour could move a VONC in HMG in which Tory MPs would abstain.
To be fair, Starmer should've seriously considered laying down a VONC in the House anyway. The timing is hard to judge, and it would almost certainly be lost, but just putting his money where his mouth is would've been a boost to Labour morale I think.
The timing is, however, key. Any VONC gets next day priority in the House ISTR. So, stymying the Government business for the day. Thatcher called many, many before finally winning one
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
That's a 12% swing from Conservative to Labour on UNS and in marginal seats and with tactical voting, I would think any Conservative MP facing a Labour challenge and with a majority vulnerable to a 15-18% swing will be worried.
The CON-LD swing is a more modest 4.5% but with tactical voting by Labour supporters that could put any Conservative facing a Lib Dem challenger and having a majority vulnerable to a 10% swing could be under threat.
My personal view is Com Res has overcooked the Labour number slightly and undercooked the LD number slightly so a 9-10 point Labour lead with the LDs in low double digits looks more reasonable.
The real jeopardy for the Tories is the likely renaissance of tactical voting. Would be toxic for them even under the gerrymandered new boundaries which give them a ludicrous safety net.
The boundaries are not gerrymandered - they were prepared by an independent commission. Of course they took representations from parties but that was only one factor in their analysis
True, plus the fact that the numbers on which the current boundaries are based are 22 years old.
They are indeed. The trend, at least pre-pandemic, over that period of moving into, rather away from, City centres, has disguised how out of date they are. Although. It was David Cameron who decided the rules needed drastically re-writing. Had he left alone, they would have gone through automatically with little controversy many years ago.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
Ok, I am long of Bojo going by end Q1 (now much longer odds, but not despairing yet), and lab maj next GE at 11/2 (tipped at that, now in to 4/1)
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do like that many on here rate Corbyn unfavourably to both Brown and Foot. Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority. That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections. So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck. And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all. Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
If Johnson lost a VONC from Tory MP and refused to quit Labour could move a VONC in HMG in which Tory MPs would abstain.
To be fair, Starmer should've seriously considered laying down a VONC in the House anyway. The timing is hard to judge, and it would almost certainly be lost, but just putting his money where his mouth is would've been a boost to Labour morale I think.
Why should Starmer interrupt his opponents when they are making a mistake?
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
Corbyn lost a VOC amongst his MPs in 2016 and cracked on regardless for a further 3 years
If Johnson lost a VONC from Tory MP and refused to quit Labour could move a VONC in HMG in which Tory MPs would abstain.
To be fair, Starmer should've seriously considered laying down a VONC in the House anyway. The timing is hard to judge, and it would almost certainly be lost, but just putting his money where his mouth is would've been a boost to Labour morale I think.
Why should Starmer interrupt his opponents when they are making a mistake?
If Johnson lost a VONC from Tory MP and refused to quit Labour could move a VONC in HMG in which Tory MPs would abstain.
To be fair, Starmer should've seriously considered laying down a VONC in the House anyway. The timing is hard to judge, and it would almost certainly be lost, but just putting his money where his mouth is would've been a boost to Labour morale I think.
Humble Address asking for publication in full of Gray is the better move. Easy for tories to bloviate about Getting the Big things Right in a vonc, less easy to dream up reasons for suppressing information
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
When you look at the detail of the metrics they are intending to use to measure progress there is lots of potentially interesting and worthwhile things to look at. It's a good start at defining what levelling up would actually mean in terms of improving people's lives.
I was also interested to know what they mean by "the six capitals" which are referred to quite often. And how will they define what is a globally competitive city?
The repeated references to - "this measure will improve in every area of the UK, and the gap between best-performing and worst-performing areas will narrow" - is a lot harder to achieve then it sounds. Particularly in the UK, it's been a lot easier to reinforce successful areas. It's pretty much the leftie dream isn't it, to make everyone better off, but to also narrow the difference between rich and poor.
Did anyone else hear the awful innumeracy of one of our supposed leading broadcasters this morning?
Nick Robinson declared that Wordle had been sold "for a seven figure sum, so at least ten billion"
When corrected on it he said "ah yes, so at least ten million"
I wept a little.
PPE at Oxford innit.
Reminds me a bit of friends of mine who did social science degrees at uni, one who I helped retake and pass her GCSE maths to get on her course. All were appalled that they had to do maths (mostly A Level stats stuff and a bit harder) in their studies.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do like that many on here rate Corbyn unfavourably to both Brown and Foot. Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority. That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections. So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck. And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all. Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
Yes. Corbyn's 40% was a quite remarkable achievement, considering he defied almost every convention of how a GE was to be fought. One B Johnson paid attention. Most Tories didn't.
PS. It wasn't just Scotland. Brown got 200+ seats in E+W on less than 30% of the vote. Far more than the Tories in 97 and 2001 on a much bigger share
If simply creating a new minister for something did any good then Johnson could just appoint a Minister for Everyone Becoming an Instantaneous Dollar Billionaire and, lo, all of our problems would be over.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
Would a Minister for Portsmouth need a Spinnaker Doctor?
If simply creating a new minister for something did any good then Johnson could just appoint a Minister for Everyone Becoming an Instantaneous Dollar Billionaire and, lo, all of our problems would be over.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
Would a Minister for Portsmouth need a Spinnaker Doctor?
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
Ok, I am long of Bojo going by end Q1 (now much longer odds, but not despairing yet), and lab maj next GE at 11/2 (tipped at that, now in to 4/1)
Alright, thanks to you and @foxy who provided some tips. I’ll take a look and see if I want to bet. TBH, I’m more likely to bet on the 2022 mid terms than lock my money in for a few years but, agreed, Lab maj at 11/2 doesn’t look good if you think BJ a has pissed off enough people where this is like the Tories in the 90s
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do like that many on here rate Corbyn unfavourably to both Brown and Foot. Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority. That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections. So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck. And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all. Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
If simply creating a new minister for something did any good then Johnson could just appoint a Minister for Everyone Becoming an Instantaneous Dollar Billionaire and, lo, all of our problems would be over.
Does anyone remember when we used to have a Minister for Portsmouth? The office was abolished after two-and-a-half years, having achieved the square root of fuck all. This wheeze sounds exactly as tokenistic, transitory and useless.
Would a Minister for Portsmouth need a Spinnaker Doctor?
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do like that many on here rate Corbyn unfavourably to both Brown and Foot. Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority. That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections. So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck. And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all. Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
Corbyn also got a lot of voters to vote against him too.
Remember the Tories got their highest voteshare since Thatcher in 1987 in 2017 and 2019 to keep Corbyn out of No 10.
It was just the extra votes they got in 2019 to get Brexit done too that got them the majority under Boris May failed to get in 2017
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
When you look at the detail of the metrics they are intending to use to measure progress there is lots of potentially interesting and worthwhile things to look at. It's a good start at defining what levelling up would actually mean in terms of improving people's lives.
I was also interested to know what they mean by "the six capitals" which are referred to quite often. And how will they define what is a globally competitive city?
The repeated references to - "this measure will improve in every area of the UK, and the gap between best-performing and worst-performing areas will narrow" - is a lot harder to achieve then it sounds. Particularly in the UK, it's been a lot easier to reinforce successful areas. It's pretty much the leftie dream isn't it, to make everyone better off, but to also narrow the difference between rich and poor.
It's a bit like saying we will make all areas of the UK above average on the key metrics, isn't it? They used to try that line with school examination results.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do like that many on here rate Corbyn unfavourably to both Brown and Foot. Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority. That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections. So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck. And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all. Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
Yes. Corbyn's 40% was a quite remarkable achievement, considering he defied almost every convention of how a GE was to be fought. One B Johnson paid attention. Most Tories didn't.
It's impossible to tell, but my impression of 2017 was that there were a lot of people who considered the prospect of granting a landslide majority to Theresa May, and decided they had to find a way to stop it, and that explained a lot of the 40% vote for Corbyn's Labour in 2017.
Given that FPTP encourages negative campaigning, I think we have to regard a lot of votes as cast against something, rather than for something.
So in principle the result of the next election can be predicted by anticipating the framing of the campaign which will be accepted by the British public. At the moment, voting against the arrogant shambles of the incumbent government looks like a good bet, but the Tories have been very good at throwing negative shade, and they have a long time to do so.
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
When you look at the detail of the metrics they are intending to use to measure progress there is lots of potentially interesting and worthwhile things to look at. It's a good start at defining what levelling up would actually mean in terms of improving people's lives.
I was also interested to know what they mean by "the six capitals" which are referred to quite often. And how will they define what is a globally competitive city?
The repeated references to - "this measure will improve in every area of the UK, and the gap between best-performing and worst-performing areas will narrow" - is a lot harder to achieve then it sounds. Particularly in the UK, it's been a lot easier to reinforce successful areas. It's pretty much the leftie dream isn't it, to make everyone better off, but to also narrow the difference between rich and poor.
It's a bit like saying we will make all areas of the UK above average on the key metrics, isn't it? They used to try that line with school examination results.
It's not saying that at all.
It's saying that they want to narrow the differences, but they won't achieve that by pulling down the best-performing areas, thereby avoiding a scenario of meeting the target by making everyone equal in misery.
As a set of metrics for measuring progress I think there's merit, and it shows there has been more thought involved than with the "New Pots Of Money For Marginals" Fund, which has been all that has been heard of levelling-up to date.
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Just had a quick read.
It’s woefully unambitious.
Under housing, one ambition is to reduce the number of "non-decent rented homes" by 50% by 2030. That's great - half the people who currently live in such homes will still be in them. Pitiful. How about nobody should live in a non-decent rented home?
It is weak on transport, weak on skills, weak on housing, and weak on devolution.
When you look at the detail of the metrics they are intending to use to measure progress there is lots of potentially interesting and worthwhile things to look at. It's a good start at defining what levelling up would actually mean in terms of improving people's lives.
I was also interested to know what they mean by "the six capitals" which are referred to quite often. And how will they define what is a globally competitive city?
The repeated references to - "this measure will improve in every area of the UK, and the gap between best-performing and worst-performing areas will narrow" - is a lot harder to achieve then it sounds. Particularly in the UK, it's been a lot easier to reinforce successful areas. It's pretty much the leftie dream isn't it, to make everyone better off, but to also narrow the difference between rich and poor.
No, the metrics are a bit crap.
The broad themes are fine, but really this waits a proper government with ambition and focus to deliver.
One presumes the six capitals are
Newcastle (NE) Manchester (NW) Leeds (Yorks) Birmingham (W Mids) Nottingham-Derby (E Mids) Bristol (SW)
Not sure where that leaves Liverpool, Sheffield, Southampton-Portsmouth and Tees Valley.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I'm not even sure how much they objectively "favour the Tories", as opposed to favouring Labour less than the current ones.
Removing a bias isn't the same as introducing a bias.
That simply isn't true. On equal votes, the Tories win more seats. They do now, they will on the new boundaries, too. So they favour the Tories. But that isn't bias. Merely a function of the current distribution of votes.
Yes, but isn't that a function of vote efficiency and the winner's bonus, not the boundaries per se?
Michael Gove will announce 12 missions tomorrow, actual metrics against which levelling up will be judged. This is the full table from an internal govt document. Includes everything from Living Standards, to digital connectivity, to education, to “pride in place.” https://twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1488619523699838987/photo/1
Levelling Up died when they scrapped HS2E and NPR.
From now on it's empty slogans to hide the lack of meaningful changes or any spending of money.
Whoever could have foreseen that Tories Against Thatcherism would go nowhere?
All-out culture war next. Bring on the beer and bingo.
It was also the ultimate etymological source of the word fascinate.
So being fascinated is kind of like being charmed by a penis amulet!
According to wiktionary it was also the Latin word for dildo. There's a quote from a near two thousand year old Roman text (Satyricon by Petronius)
"Prōfert Oenothea scorteum fascinum, quod ut oleō et minūtō pipere atque ū̆rtīcae trītō circumdedit sēmine […] Then Oenothea takes out a leather dildo and, having covered it in oil, pepper and ground nettle seeds […]" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascinum
I had to find out where this went.
The story is of Encolpius, his ex-boyfriend, his new sixteen slave boyfriend and their crazy adventures. Encolpius becomes impotent during the tale and visits an enchantress.
She prepares the dildo as above, then puts it up his bottom.. This appears to cure his impotence.
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
A distinctly odd cri de coeur from someone not shy of regularly arguing their own political opinions. Or are we just insufficiently amoral for your taste ?
I’ll bite, though. I’m not a big bettor on next general election as it’s a bit distant, but I have a little cash on a Labour majority at 5/1, and a bit more on Labour most seats at something under 2/1.
It was also the ultimate etymological source of the word fascinate.
So being fascinated is kind of like being charmed by a penis amulet!
According to wiktionary it was also the Latin word for dildo. There's a quote from a near two thousand year old Roman text (Satyricon by Petronius)
"Prōfert Oenothea scorteum fascinum, quod ut oleō et minūtō pipere atque ū̆rtīcae trītō circumdedit sēmine […] Then Oenothea takes out a leather dildo and, having covered it in oil, pepper and ground nettle seeds […]" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascinum
I had to find out where this went.
The story is of Encolpius, his ex-boyfriend, his new sixteen slave boyfriend and their crazy adventures. Encolpius becomes impotent during the tale and visits an enchantress.
She prepares the dildo as above, then puts it up his bottom.. This appears to cure his impotence.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
Some waste was inevitable, given the desperate international competition for supplies at the beginning of the pandemic, but that does seem an extraordinary amount - nearly three quarters of the total spend.
How much went to fast tracked ministerial acquaintances ?
- The full rules are available on written request from the 1922 secretary - rule 7: If the leader were to lose [a VONC*] they MUST resign and they may not stand in the leadership election which is then triggered
A secondary source, and not full rule, but not suggestive of wiggle room.
* The explainer does describe it as a "NO confidence" vote
The key word is MUST.
That word would have to be in the full rules the 1922 secretary has
OK but it would be pretty wacky if it were the case that having lost a VOC you had the option to crack on regardless. Utterly bonkers actually
That was the case in Labour, because when they were being drawn up nobody thought anyone would be so shameful as to continue without commanding the confidence of the PLP. I hope our Conservative friends spotted the Corbyn debacle and tightened their own wording accordingly…
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Agreed. Although the Boundaries Commission should have fought harder to point out to the public this very obvious ruse.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
I'd call it gerrymandering because that was the intention of the Cameron government when it set those rules, and the US GOP when it adopted similar measures. Ironically, it was Cameron purging the electoral rolls and moving to individual registration (so that Labour areas would show fewer electors) as part of this gerrymandering that cost him the Brexit referendum and therefore also his premiership.
It was also the ultimate etymological source of the word fascinate.
So being fascinated is kind of like being charmed by a penis amulet!
According to wiktionary it was also the Latin word for dildo. There's a quote from a near two thousand year old Roman text (Satyricon by Petronius)
"Prōfert Oenothea scorteum fascinum, quod ut oleō et minūtō pipere atque ū̆rtīcae trītō circumdedit sēmine […] Then Oenothea takes out a leather dildo and, having covered it in oil, pepper and ground nettle seeds […]" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascinum
I had to find out where this went.
The story is of Encolpius, his ex-boyfriend, his new sixteen slave boyfriend and their crazy adventures. Encolpius becomes impotent during the tale and visits an enchantress.
She prepares the dildo as above, then puts it up his bottom.. This appears to cure his impotence.
Isn't etymology fascinating?
Banned! What for?
I hadn't realised until you said, I'd just noticed that I hadn't seen the lunar bunny orbiting lately..
Who turns down an exciting opportunity to be a future scapegoat?
Well, the Telegraph adds:- Ms Romeo was believed to have got to the final three for the role when it was vacant last year but was beaten by Simon Case, who became the youngest Cabinet Secretary in history.
I think it would make a great deal of difference if the landlords of shop buildings were to be compelled by law to keep them immaculate, and penalised for keeping them empty. I think it would drive down rents and undermine the price of those properties, and be a huge financial blow to those who currently own them, but ultimately lead to a new generation of lifestyle business owners being able to afford to rent, or even buy and live above the shop. The renaissance of the provincial High Street would be the most vivid example of levelling up that there could be.
America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.
NY Times
Alternatively, if international investors are willing to lend such a prodigious amount, and at such low returns in the last n years, then that is evidence of great confidence in the future prospects of the American economy.
Alternatively, alternatively: quantitive easing, China's need to recycle dollars, and bank capitalisation rules that require them to buy government bonds irrespective of yield, have combined to allow governments to fund themselves at absurdly low levels.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
I'd call it gerrymandering because that was the intention of the Cameron government when it set those rules, and the US GOP when it adopted similar measures. Ironically, it was Cameron purging the electoral rolls and moving to individual registration (so that Labour areas would show fewer electors) as part of this gerrymandering that cost him the Brexit referendum and therefore also his premiership.
Point of order: if you want to take a look at the most effective gerrymandering, then the Democrat-run states of Illinois, New York and (effectively, even though it is nominally independent) provide the best examples.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
I'd call it gerrymandering because that was the intention of the Cameron government when it set those rules, and the US GOP when it adopted similar measures. Ironically, it was Cameron purging the electoral rolls and moving to individual registration (so that Labour areas would show fewer electors) as part of this gerrymandering that cost him the Brexit referendum and therefore also his premiership.
Why would this have cost Cameron the referendum? Are you saying that people who did not register under the new system would have voted in the referendum?
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last £4.7 billion we can possibly forgive on the grounds building up stocks is a good thing, and that at the time we had to pay the market rate, however inflated that was. Obviously, more details would be needed; perhaps they are in the full report. More than £3 billion on unsuitable or defective kit is more problematic.
America’s gross national debt topped $30 trillion for the first time on Tuesday, an ominous fiscal milestone that underscores the fragile nature of the country’s long-term economic health as it grapples with soaring prices and the prospect of higher interest rates.
NY Times
I have to admit that, despite my general right wing leanings, I do believe in MMT. Who essentially is going to call in the debt?
I don't think 'calling in' is on the cards - but what if China decided to only roll-over half their Treasuries at each expiration?
That would put some pretty serious upward pressure on interest rates.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
Having been a fan of the Gordon Brown Downfall parodies when he was struggling, I'm now disappointed by the lack of any I've seen aimed at Boris. Surely it'd even be easy now to put Boris's hair on Hitler.
Have I missed them or is he just too obvious a target now for it to be funny anymore?
Un cri de coeur but is there any chance we can return this website to its main purpose, namely sharing good tips?
At the moment, it’s essentially a site of moral rectitude by posters - in no particular order, @Nigelb, @Anabobazina, @Nigel_Foremain etc - just falling over themselves to prove how they are morally superior to most mortals.
That’s great and I’m sure in real life they are wonderful people but let’s get down to the basics: how many people on here would be willing to go full in on betting on Labour winning the next GE and beg accordingly?
Because there is a lot of talk about how Johnson is dead etc but how many on here are prepared to put their money where their mouth is?
A distinctly odd cri de coeur from someone not shy of regularly arguing their own political opinions. Or are we just insufficiently amoral for your taste ?
I’ll bite, though. I’m not a big bettor on next general election as it’s a bit distant, but I have a little cash on a Labour majority at 5/1, and a bit more on Labour most seats at something under 2/1.
I’m not sure where Mr Ed gets this idea that I’m a paragon of morals from (or whatever daft wording he used). As for Boris, I keep saying he’s going nowhere. Then again, I bet heavily on his hero Trump winning the election, and I was wrong about that. As was he.
Having been a fan of the Gordon Brown Downfall parodies when he was struggling, I'm now disappointed by the lack of any I've seen aimed at Boris. Surely it'd even be easy now to put Boris's hair on Hitler.
Have I missed them or is he just too obvious a target now for it to be funny anymore?
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
I'd call it gerrymandering because that was the intention of the Cameron government when it set those rules, and the US GOP when it adopted similar measures. Ironically, it was Cameron purging the electoral rolls and moving to individual registration (so that Labour areas would show fewer electors) as part of this gerrymandering that cost him the Brexit referendum and therefore also his premiership.
Why would this have cost Cameron the referendum? Are you saying that people who did not register under the new system would have voted in the referendum?
Yes, because by-and-large, these people tended to be young and urban, demographics that lean pro-remain, and David Cameron belatedly realised his blunder, and so during the referendum campaign controversially extended the registration deadline to try and get them back on the rolls.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
Some waste was inevitable, given the desperate international competition for supplies at the beginning of the pandemic, but that does seem an extraordinary amount - nearly three quarters of the total spend.
How much went to fast tracked ministerial acquaintances ?
Slightly unfair with the caveat that I’m assuming it’s not downright corruption:
- the £4.75 billion - so over half - is effectively saying “we had to overpay for PPE which has now come down in price” - ie it’s an accounting write-off. True, they might have paid too much but imagine the howls if they hadn’t bought the PPE and staff complained they were at risk;
- around 5% of the PPE is defective (the £0.67bn) - not great but probably what you might expect given the rush to find equipment;
- another 6% is in over-ordering PPE. Again, not great but imagine the stories of front line staff did not have PPE. The Govt probably played safe by over-ordering.
The scandal is probably the £2.6bn of PPE ordered which did not meet standards. What happened there?
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
Well. Yes, that is a good point. I wouldn't describe it as "gerrymandering", mind. That suggests someone is sitting there deliberately doing it. They aren't. The Boundary Commission is laudably unpoliticised and neutral. As I said. Folk who don't like the results of FPTP, ought to be trying to change it. Not claim it is being rigged.
I'd call it gerrymandering because that was the intention of the Cameron government when it set those rules, and the US GOP when it adopted similar measures. Ironically, it was Cameron purging the electoral rolls and moving to individual registration (so that Labour areas would show fewer electors) as part of this gerrymandering that cost him the Brexit referendum and therefore also his premiership.
Point of order: if you want to take a look at the most effective gerrymandering, then the Democrat-run states of Illinois, New York and (effectively, even though it is nominally independent) provide the best examples.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
The Ukrainian press asked a similar question themselves however!
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
Two years into the pandemic ? £4.7bn is over a third of the total - and that’s the write down, not the purchase price - which implies we bought enough still to have well over a year’s stock now. Panic buying for 2020, and perhaps 2021 is not surprising, but for 2022 ?
The actual answer to levelling up is not that intellectually complex.
Give city-regions the power, the tax-raising (and/or bond-issuing) ability and let them get on with it.
Define a national growth strategy (with an explicit levelling up objective), and focus your national transport, skills, and R&D policy to support it.
Commit to long term infrastructure so that investors are confident they won’t get stranded after setting up in, say, Bradford.
Focus efforts (for example make Newcastle or Glasgow the green energy capital of the UK) and avoid sprinkling little bits of nothing everywhere.
I'm singing from the same hymn sheet. I'd go with proper regional governments, with the hope of improving democratic accountability (and also the workshop of democracy effect: good policy ideas that work in one region can be rolled out in another, although I accept metro mayors can occasionally achieve the same).
Business incubators and innovation hubs based on and around the universities (all, not both, of them). Not to pick winners, but to throw a lot of pooh sticks into the stream.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. And most importantly: socially owned.
Libraries.
Reintegrating food production into general society.
Ban private education, for at least two generations.
Answer these questions: What's the point of towns? How long do people actually want to live, and how do they want to pay for care?
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
The Ukrainian press asked a similar question themselves however!
The UK state broadcaster has just led the questioning of the UK PM with it. I guess it must be tempting to follow up in a similar vein.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
Obviously, and indeed, having to show your passport at the check in desk is “travel suppression”
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
The Ukrainian press asked a similar question themselves however!
The UK state broadcaster has just led the questioning of the UK PM with it. I guess it must be tempting to follow up in a similar vein.
I can’t remember exactly but on the clip I saw earlier from Ukrainian telly, the Ukrainian press went first I think. But I could be misremembering - been a long day!
Sen. Ben Ray Luján (D-N.M.) suffered a stroke last Thursday while home in New Mexico, according to his chief of staff Carlos Sanchez. He then "underwent decompressive surgery to ease swelling" but is resting comfortably and expected to make a full recovery. (Politico)
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
What you're saying here, whether or not you mean to, is that journalists should take the PM's lead in what to talk about. The PM doesn't get to decide what people are interested in talking about. That not how journalism works and it never should be.
Only on important foreign stuff like this (and this is, entirely coincidentally, pretty huge), or something at home like responding to a deadly terrorist attack should they be able to avoid this kind of question. It really shouldn't have been asked in Kyiv right now.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
Is your car worth what it was last year?
Ironically, probably more given the shortages in the car market
It was also the ultimate etymological source of the word fascinate.
So being fascinated is kind of like being charmed by a penis amulet!
According to wiktionary it was also the Latin word for dildo. There's a quote from a near two thousand year old Roman text (Satyricon by Petronius)
"Prōfert Oenothea scorteum fascinum, quod ut oleō et minūtō pipere atque ū̆rtīcae trītō circumdedit sēmine […] Then Oenothea takes out a leather dildo and, having covered it in oil, pepper and ground nettle seeds […]" https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascinum
I had to find out where this went.
The story is of Encolpius, his ex-boyfriend, his new sixteen slave boyfriend and their crazy adventures. Encolpius becomes impotent during the tale and visits an enchantress.
She prepares the dildo as above, then puts it up his bottom.. This appears to cure his impotence.
Isn't etymology fascinating?
Banned! What for?
I hadn't realised until you said, I'd just noticed that I hadn't seen the lunar bunny orbiting lately..
She was banned for posting naked pictures (not of herself) to the board.
The actual answer to levelling up is not that intellectually complex.
Give city-regions the power, the tax-raising (and/or bond-issuing) ability and let them get on with it.
Define a national growth strategy (with an explicit levelling up objective), and focus your national transport, skills, and R&D policy to support it.
Commit to long term infrastructure so that investors are confident they won’t get stranded after setting up in, say, Bradford.
Focus efforts (for example make Newcastle or Glasgow the green energy capital of the UK) and avoid sprinkling little bits of nothing everywhere.
I'm singing from the same hymn sheet. I'd go with proper regional governments, with the hope of improving democratic accountability (and also the workshop of democracy effect: good policy ideas that work in one region can be rolled out in another, although I accept metro mayors can occasionally achieve the same).
Business incubators and innovation hubs based on and around the universities (all, not both, of them). Not to pick winners, but to throw a lot of pooh sticks into the stream.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. And most importantly: socially owned.
Libraries.
Reintegrating food production into general society.
Ban private education, for at least two generations.
Answer these questions: What's the point of towns? How long do people actually want to live, and how do they want to pay for care?
And yeah, fix planning.
My list got more dreamy as it went on...
Ban private education? Because there are no private schools north of Watford? Ampleforth, Rugby and King's Chester might have something to say.
All the wealthy middle class parents would just send their children to an Outstanding rated state school anyway, making them even more exclusive in turn
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
What you're saying here, whether or not you mean to, is that journalists should take the PM's lead in what to talk about. The PM doesn't get to decide what people are interested in talking about. That not how journalism works and it never should be.
Only on important foreign stuff like this (and this is, entirely coincidentally, pretty huge), or something at home like responding to a deadly terrorist attack should they be able to avoid this kind of question. It really shouldn't have been asked in Kyiv right now.
I can't see any unintended consequences coming out of this idea of yours, no siree.
I know the Tories have Russian connections, but I don't think Boris can summon the New Red Army to Ukraine's border whenever he fancies.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
In a way, but collecting parcels is not a civic right / duty.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
Obviously, and indeed, having to show your passport at the check in desk is “travel suppression”
Rather different, no?
One doesn't have to travel.
But the again, I guess one doesn't have to vote.
So long as the *burden* on people voting is equal for all, I would be happy with the photo ID law. So, if you have photo ID, you need to wait in a queue at the polling station for 40 minutes so that the time (which is after all money) which you expend to cast your vote is equal to someone with photo ID.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
I've read your comment but I don't understand why the number of children in a constituency should be taken into account when they're obviously not entitled to vote. To put it another way, I don't see why areas with a large older population and fewer children should be awarded fewer seats. Also I don't really see what the relevance of more mobile populations in urban areas is to this.
Get over yourselves. Voter ID has been used in Northern Ireland for decades and no one has a problem with it. If you lack a passport or driving licence the local council will issue you with a document.
Norn Iron has a lot of problems, but democratic suppression via passports and driving licences is not one of them
I'd like to support what seemed to be an unpopular suggestion earlier by @HYUFD
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
What you're saying here, whether or not you mean to, is that journalists should take the PM's lead in what to talk about. The PM doesn't get to decide what people are interested in talking about. That not how journalism works and it never should be.
Only on important foreign stuff like this (and this is, entirely coincidentally, pretty huge), or something at home like responding to a deadly terrorist attack should they be able to avoid this kind of question. It really shouldn't have been asked in Kyiv right now.
I can't see any unintended consequences coming out of this idea of yours, no siree.
I know the Tories have Russian connections, but I don't think Boris can summon the New Red Army to Ukraine's border whenever he fancies.
No, it's more about setting a precedent for what the press should and shouldn't ask about depending on the setting the PM chooses for him or herself. Self censorship is a real thing, and there must not be any culture of deference from journalists. It's not the journalist's job to be respectful or to accept the framing the politician wants. They should ask what they think is relevant and personally I applaud them for not sticking to the script.
I get what you're saying, and mostly agree. But this wasn't the time and place to do it. Ukraine is threatened by invasion. We are not threatened at all by Boris in anything close to a respectable comparison.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
France did ban exports which is why the NHS had to scrabble for PPE when the huge precautionary order they had placed in January from their main French supplier was blocked by Macron.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
It is an unequal burden because it applies to some voters and not others (those who already have driving licences).
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
It is an unequal burden because it applies to some voters and not others (those who already have driving licences).
Tick an extra box and send a photo? I can't see what is so outrageous. And if it's that outrageous, why is nobody proposing changing the system in NI?
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
France did ban exports which is why the NHS had to scrabble for PPE when the huge precautionary order they had placed in January from their main French supplier was blocked by Macron.
How lucky for Starmer that these "successes" happened under a Tory administration. Under a Labour govt, they would undoubtedly be seen as exemplars of the failure of socialism....
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
It is an unequal burden because it applies to some voters and not others (those who already have driving licences).
Tick an extra box and send a photo? I can't see what is so outrageous. And if it's that outrageous, why is nobody proposing changing the system in NI?
I said it was unequal; outrageous is your term. To turn it round, however, if it is so un-outrageous, why should the requirement to send a photo not apply to everybody? Though these days even sending a photo poses an unequal burden because it is a piece of urine for smartphone users while others will have to get the bus to somewhere with a photobooth.
In Northern Ireland, historically personation was a problem but this is not the case in mainland Britain.
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
It is an unequal burden because it applies to some voters and not others (those who already have driving licences).
Tick an extra box and send a photo? I can't see what is so outrageous. And if it's that outrageous, why is nobody proposing changing the system in NI?
I said it was unequal; outrageous is your term. To turn it round, however, if it is so un-outrageous, why should the requirement to send a photo not apply to everybody? Though these days even sending a photo poses an unequal burden because it is a piece of urine for smartphone users while others will have to get the bus to somewhere with a photobooth.
In Northern Ireland, historically personation was a problem but this is not the case in mainland Britain.
I used the term "outrageous" because of the level of vitriol the policy gets with its opponents.
But sure, if they want to make a council-issued electoral ID the only valid photo ID, I wouldn't see a problem in theory.
Your last point addresses why photo ID was introduced in NI, not why it shouldn't be abolished now (you don't state that personation is still a risk there).
The boundaries aren't gerrymandered FFS. They do favour the Tories at the moment (in that they would have by far the most seats on an identical vote), because their vote is more efficient. But that isn't set in stone by any means whatsoever. It wasn't pre-2010. If you don't approve, support PR. That goes for Labour whingers now, and Tory whingers in 2005 and 2010.
I do support PR, but I also think the boundaries are gerrymandered, not by the Boundaries Commission (who are merely doing their job) but by the use of registered electors rather than eligible population to determine the size of constituencies. Constituencies with highly mobile populations (typically young and/or immigrant) have much lower registration levels, since it's only obsessives like us who rush to register every time they move. They are then merged as "having too few electors", giving a bias to more settled areas - which are older and less urban. I'd use the census data instead of the registration number to determine constituency size.
That’s not gerrymandering though.
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
More voter suppression than gerrymandering, as is requiring photo ID when there is close to zero evidence of voter fraud that way.
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Is requiring photo ID at the sorting office "parcel collection suppression"?
We are not a country where ID cards are essentially universal. (Unlike France or the US.)
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
As long as free photo ID is issued as part of the electoral registration process (as I understand is the proposal) then it's not meaningfully an "added burden".
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
It is an unequal burden because it applies to some voters and not others (those who already have driving licences).
Tick an extra box and send a photo? I can't see what is so outrageous. And if it's that outrageous, why is nobody proposing changing the system in NI?
Because the people who govern NI are far more interested in abusing one another and feathering their nests than doing any actual governing.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
France did ban exports which is why the NHS had to scrabble for PPE when the huge precautionary order they had placed in January from their main French supplier was blocked by Macron.
How lucky for Starmer that these "successes" happened under a Tory administration. Under a Labour govt, they would undoubtedly be seen as exemplars of the failure of socialism....
Indeed. I am not sure how an accounting error of £9b or the equivalent of 14 new hospitals can be put down to a quirk of precautionary stockholding.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
France did ban exports which is why the NHS had to scrabble for PPE when the huge precautionary order they had placed in January from their main French supplier was blocked by Macron.
How lucky for Starmer that these "successes" happened under a Tory administration. Under a Labour govt, they would undoubtedly be seen as exemplars of the failure of socialism....
Indeed. I am not sure how an accounting error of £9b or the equivalent of 14 new hospitals can be put down to a quirk of precautionary stockholding.
It's not an accounting error. The government was under pressure to buy PPE at any cost to protect our sainted NHS at the same time as pretty much every other country was doing the same thing. You don't get it cheap in those circumstances.
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to: £0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective." £2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)." £0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed." £4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
The last one is not a real loss. If it was, we'd all be wailing all the time about the value of the milk in the fridge had declined since we'd bought it.
If it relates to stock still held, then we rather badly overstocked the fridge with milk.
We did.
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
France did ban exports which is why the NHS had to scrabble for PPE when the huge precautionary order they had placed in January from their main French supplier was blocked by Macron.
How lucky for Starmer that these "successes" happened under a Tory administration. Under a Labour govt, they would undoubtedly be seen as exemplars of the failure of socialism....
Indeed. I am not sure how an accounting error of £9b or the equivalent of 14 new hospitals can be put down to a quirk of precautionary stockholding.
Did you want the PPE or not? Because you had to pay through the nose for it in mid 2020. Only £600m in defective equipment is surprisingly low.
Comments
As for putting money on Johnson going, well the question is what odds and by when? I'd not put money on him going before May, but sometime this year I'd be tempted by it. On Labour winning the next GE? It'd have to be generous, they are doing well now but it is a long way to come from behind.
https://www.itv.com/news/2022-02-01/covid-government-discloses-87-billion-of-losses-on-ppe
"ITV News reveals £8.7 billion of losses on PPE in government accounts
Buried on page 199 of the Department of Health and Social Care’s annual report published yesterday is the shocking disclosure that it has incurred £8.7 billion of losses - £8.7 billion! - on £12.1 billion of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) bought in 2020/21. Think about how that money could have been deployed in hospitals. Surely there needs to be a statement from Sajid Javid to Parliament about this. Here is the excerpt from the DHSC annual report: “The Department estimates that there has been a loss in value of £8.7 billion of the £12.1 billion of PPE purchased in 2020-21."
The impairment relates to:
£0.67 billion - "PPE which cannot be used, for instance because it is defective."
£2.6 billion - "PPE which is not suitable for use within the health and social care sector but which the Department considers might be suitable for other uses (although these potential other uses are as yet uncertain)."
£0.75 billion - "PPE which is in excess of the amount that will ultimately be needed."
£4.7 billion - "Adjustment to the year-end valuation of PPE due to the market price of equivalent PPE at the year-end being lower than the original purchase price."
Nick Robinson declared that Wordle had been sold "for a seven figure sum, so at least ten billion"
When corrected on it he said "ah yes, so at least ten million"
I wept a little.
Any VONC gets next day priority in the House ISTR.
So, stymying the Government business for the day. Thatcher called many, many before finally winning one
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1488636894820896777?s=20&t=AHZnYW9KoAKi3-DL48khIQ
That’s you not liking the system and resorting to smears because you can’t persuade the Commons to change it
Although. It was David Cameron who decided the rules needed drastically re-writing. Had he left alone, they would have gone through automatically with little controversy many years ago.
... maybe this time...
Current boundaries are quite geared to make the Tory vote more efficient, but just a few decades ago were the opposite. Mostly it seems to benefit those with a plurality, and the gearing reverses at a point.
Brown managed only 29% of the vote in 2010 (but netted him 258 seats - Scotland). Foot managed a mere 27.6% of the vote but still got 209 seats. For the record, Miliband managed only 30.4%.
Corbyn managed to do better than all three as a percentage share of the vote in the GEs he fought, managing 40% and 32.1%. But the system was now tilting away from Labour and the two party system was re-emerging.
Let's be honest. Corbyn's 40% in 2017, in any other 'normal' election would've won him a majority.
That percentage beat Brown, Miliband, Blair(!) in 2005, Kinnock both times, Callaghan, Wilson in both 1974 elections.
So only Blair in 1997 and 2001, and Wilson in 1970 and before beat Corbyn's vote share.....
Bloomin' heck.
And I'm no fan of Corbyn at all.
Half a percent more, and he'd have probably been PM in 2017.
I was also interested to know what they mean by "the six capitals" which are referred to quite often. And how will they define what is a globally competitive city?
The repeated references to - "this measure will improve in every area of the UK, and the gap between best-performing and worst-performing areas will narrow" - is a lot harder to achieve then it sounds. Particularly in the UK, it's been a lot easier to reinforce successful areas. It's pretty much the leftie dream isn't it, to make everyone better off, but to also narrow the difference between rich and poor.
One B Johnson paid attention. Most Tories didn't.
PS. It wasn't just Scotland. Brown got 200+ seats in E+W on less than 30% of the vote. Far more than the Tories in 97 and 2001 on a much bigger share
Remember the Tories got their highest voteshare since Thatcher in 1987 in 2017 and 2019 to keep Corbyn out of No 10.
It was just the extra votes they got in 2019 to get Brexit done too that got them the majority under Boris May failed to get in 2017
Given that FPTP encourages negative campaigning, I think we have to regard a lot of votes as cast against something, rather than for something.
So in principle the result of the next election can be predicted by anticipating the framing of the campaign which will be accepted by the British public. At the moment, voting against the arrogant shambles of the incumbent government looks like a good bet, but the Tories have been very good at throwing negative shade, and they have a long time to do so.
It's saying that they want to narrow the differences, but they won't achieve that by pulling down the best-performing areas, thereby avoiding a scenario of meeting the target by making everyone equal in misery.
As a set of metrics for measuring progress I think there's merit, and it shows there has been more thought involved than with the "New Pots Of Money For Marginals" Fund, which has been all that has been heard of levelling-up to date.
The broad themes are fine, but really this waits a proper government with ambition and focus to deliver.
One presumes the six capitals are
Newcastle (NE)
Manchester (NW)
Leeds (Yorks)
Birmingham (W Mids)
Nottingham-Derby (E Mids)
Bristol (SW)
Not sure where that leaves Liverpool, Sheffield, Southampton-Portsmouth and Tees Valley.
All-out culture war next. Bring on the beer and bingo.
I'm fascinated by and want to talk about Ange's necklace that might have been a bee, or might have been a skull with wings.
Might it have been a winged fascinum?
"In ancient Roman religion and magic, the fascinus or fascinum was the embodiment of the divine phallus"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinus
It was also the ultimate etymological source of the word fascinate.
So being fascinated is kind of like being charmed by a penis amulet!
According to wiktionary it was also the Latin word for dildo. There's a quote from a near two thousand year old Roman text (Satyricon by Petronius)
"Prōfert Oenothea scorteum fascinum, quod ut oleō et minūtō pipere atque ū̆rtīcae trītō circumdedit sēmine […]
Then Oenothea takes out a leather dildo and, having covered it in oil, pepper and ground nettle seeds […]"
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/fascinum
I had to find out where this went.
The story is of Encolpius, his ex-boyfriend, his new sixteen slave boyfriend and their crazy adventures. Encolpius becomes impotent during the tale and visits an enchantress.
She prepares the dildo as above, then puts it up his bottom.. This appears to cure his impotence.
Isn't etymology fascinating?
Give city-regions the power, the tax-raising (and/or bond-issuing) ability and let them get on with it.
Define a national growth strategy (with an explicit levelling up objective), and focus your national transport, skills, and R&D policy to support it.
Commit to long term infrastructure so that investors are confident they won’t get stranded after setting up in, say, Bradford.
Focus efforts (for example make Newcastle or Glasgow the green energy capital of the UK) and avoid sprinkling little bits of nothing everywhere.
It’s killing the UK.
I’ll bite, though. I’m not a big bettor on next general election as it’s a bit distant, but I have a little cash on a Labour majority at 5/1, and a bit more on Labour most seats at something under 2/1.
How much went to fast tracked ministerial acquaintances ?
Ms Romeo was believed to have got to the final three for the role when it was vacant last year but was beaten by Simon Case, who became the youngest Cabinet Secretary in history.
Reports at the time claimed Carrie Johnson, Mr Johnson’s wife, raised objections.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/02/01/boris-johnsons-partygate-shake-up-unravels-fire-top-civil-servant/ (£££)
And fund themselves they have.
That would put some pretty serious upward pressure on interest rates.
Have I missed them or is he just too obvious a target now for it to be funny anymore?
I considered one. Ambushed by a cake etc...
- the £4.75 billion - so over half - is effectively saying “we had to overpay for PPE which has now come down in price” - ie it’s an accounting write-off. True, they might have paid too much but imagine the howls if they hadn’t bought the PPE and staff complained they were at risk;
- around 5% of the PPE is defective (the £0.67bn) - not great but probably what you might expect given the rush to find equipment;
- another 6% is in over-ordering PPE. Again, not great but imagine the stories of front line staff did not have PPE. The Govt probably played safe by over-ordering.
The scandal is probably the £2.6bn of PPE ordered which did not meet standards. What happened there?
But then again, it was a sensible precaution to have too much PPE. If other countries had banned exports, we'd have complained about lack of preparation.
The BBC chap shouldn't have used the press conference in Kyiv to ask the PM about our domestic issues. That was so disrespectful to Ukraine's people and President when they have over one hundred thousand Russian troops on their border. That question could have waited until tomorrow.
£4.7bn is over a third of the total - and that’s the write down, not the purchase price - which implies we bought enough still to have well over a year’s stock now.
Panic buying for 2020, and perhaps 2021 is not surprising, but for 2022 ?
Business incubators and innovation hubs based on and around the universities (all, not both, of them). Not to pick winners, but to throw a lot of pooh sticks into the stream.
Infrastructure, infrastructure, infrastructure. And most importantly: socially owned.
Libraries.
Reintegrating food production into general society.
Ban private education, for at least two generations.
Answer these questions: What's the point of towns? How long do people actually want to live, and how do they want to pay for care?
And yeah, fix planning.
My list got more dreamy as it went on...
(Politico)
I've unbanned her.
All the wealthy middle class parents would just send their children to an Outstanding rated state school anyway, making them even more exclusive in turn
It is therefore an added burden on people who do not carry ID on them all the time.
If the demographics of people who didn't regularly carry photo ID looked like the population as a whole, then it would be one thing.
But when the group of people who don't carry photo ID are poorer than average, are more likely to work in menial jobs with antisocial hours and are more likely to be dependent on public transport to get to the polling station, then one has to ask whether it is done solely to prevent fraud?
Especially when there is a form of voter fraud that is perhaps 1,000x more common, and which seems to not be being tackled at all.
One doesn't have to travel.
But the again, I guess one doesn't have to vote.
So long as the *burden* on people voting is equal for all, I would be happy with the photo ID law. So, if you have photo ID, you need to wait in a queue at the polling station for 40 minutes so that the time (which is after all money) which you expend to cast your vote is equal to someone with photo ID.
As for the last point, if only the most important problem in a field may be addressed, government would be doing a whole lot less.
Norn Iron has a lot of problems, but democratic suppression via passports and driving licences is not one of them
In Northern Ireland, historically personation was a problem but this is not the case in mainland Britain.
But sure, if they want to make a council-issued electoral ID the only valid photo ID, I wouldn't see a problem in theory.
Your last point addresses why photo ID was introduced in NI, not why it shouldn't be abolished now (you don't state that personation is still a risk there).