Skip to content

Punters think Johnson will survive the by-elections – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,625
edited May 2022 in General
imagePunters think Johnson will survive the by-elections – politicalbetting.com

So far there has been no reaction on the Johnson exit date markets to the two by-elections that are due to take place on June 23rd. It is almost as if the likely Tory losses are factored in,

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,539
    edited May 2022
    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    HYUFD said:

    In 1990 Thatcher was over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    The Tyrannosaurus Party did well in the Maastrichtian. It will therefore continue to do well in the Holocene, even if they are a bit extinct, not to mention dodgy..
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,084
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    It surely depends on what happens to Starmer over ChickenKormaGate
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    Mexicanpete said:

    ...

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting post.
    Since locals clear uptick in Lib Dem polling, greens solid too, this coming mostly at Labour expense and the gap between the two main parties as smaller, though no obvious bounce in the Tory share whilst Lab Lib Green combined seems on the higher end of scale from each pollster.

    HOWEVER. Within this trend of smaller Labour leads because of explained locals bounce, we are due monthly Kantor, tick tock, that never gives Labour much lead the best of times, there could be long shot betting opportunity to bet on the first Tory lead in a long while?

    That is certainly on the horizon for when a disgraced Starmer has to resign in lockdown-busting shame in a week or two, whilst Johnson doesn't have to.
    No I don’t think so. The Kantor only comes out once a month and is due now, not in a few weeks.

    Starmer resigning without trying to hang on might boost Labour a bit, or at very least put pressure on Boris and Tory ratings, so that may not throw up the Tory lead you predict.

    When the new Labour leader appointed they sure to get a bounce and honeymoon, even if they then turn out to be a dud and start going backwards against the Tories. However, the period between Starmer’s resignation and Nandy or Streetings (based on current betting) crowning, period they effectively don’t have proper leader, could see the Tories build up a poll lead again.

    What would Labour actually do without Starmer and Rayner overnight. Due to nature of their going (lawmaker lawbreakers) and promise to go, they couldn’t remotely hang on till successor found - Labour would have to turn to a grandee as mind the shop leader? Like Harriet Harman, Dianne Abbott, Margaret Beckett.

    Or I think Ed Milliband, who has worn the captains armband before, but won’t be standing for leadership. Ed v Boris might be funky enough to prevent a Tory lead at least until new leader honeymoon is over.

    How analytical and fair about Labour is this post and prospects of next Tory lead?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited May 2022
    I think Farooq is right. (Not about another by-election - past examples show it is right to wait until the result of any legalities)

    Whether it will be enough for them or not I think the Tories have come to the conclusion that they are not going to do anything about Boris, and having decided that are essentially locked in position regardless of what might happen. Sure, they'll come up with various policy pronouncements here and there, but I'm not sure even an explosive Gray report would achieve anything - feels like the Anti-Tory figures are exhausted and beaten.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,539
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    It won't, voters still sticking with the Tories clearly don't care about partygate, especially after Starmer's beergate
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    Leon said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    It surely depends on what happens to Starmer over ChickenKormaGate
    Indeed, there's a reason why Tory MPs have shut up about it.

    If Starmer resigns it changes everything.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    edited May 2022
    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    I think Farooq is wrong.

    Decency to resign might sound alright on the face of it, but as Nigel Evans shows perhaps there are good reasons not to resign, like innocence. It no doubt made his job much harder, and tough on constituents, but the very fact we would of course presume guilt was the factor in the resignation (hence it being the decent thing to do) is another reason accused are unlikely to want to.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    It could, I'm assuming whoever stays and fights their case, in which case maybe a year away.
    Of course, if he resigns the by election could not be fought over the accusations as it were, everything being sub judice.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    Tend to agree. The pictures, if they are as expected, will be the final nail in the coffin.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    Not before June 8. He's isn't serving less than Gordon
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    Tend to agree. The pictures, if they are as expected, will be the final nail in the coffin.
    Depends what they're pictures of. There's already pictures of Starmer with beer in hand and plenty of people insist there's nothing wrong with that, so they'd need to be worse than that to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    EPG said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    londonpubman said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?

    As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.

    Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
    Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
    Or Starmer in other words you mean.

    But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.

    Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁

    Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
    Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
    No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.

    Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    Tend to agree. The pictures, if they are as expected, will be the final nail in the coffin.
    Depends what they're pictures of. There's already pictures of Starmer with beer in hand and plenty of people insist there's nothing wrong with that, so they'd need to be worse than that to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
    I think if they are significantly worse than what we’ve seen so far, it’ll be done. So far Johnson has been pictured at a shit zoom quiz, and in the garden, as far as I can recall. If there are ones with beer in hand and colleagues not social distancing, and obviously socialising, that’ll surely do it. Remember it’s the bullshit in parliament that counts.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,541
    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/?utm_content=politics&utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=Echobox&utm_source=Twitter#Echobox=1652817154-2
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    Not so. At the end of September 1990 the Tories were in the 30s in every poll with LAB leads down to 5%.

  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    turbotubbs said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    Tend to agree. The pictures, if they are as expected, will be the final nail in the coffin.
    Depends what they're pictures of. There's already pictures of Starmer with beer in hand and plenty of people insist there's nothing wrong with that, so they'd need to be worse than that to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
    I think if they are significantly worse than what we’ve seen so far, it’ll be done. So far Johnson has been pictured at a shit zoom quiz, and in the garden, as far as I can recall. If there are ones with beer in hand and colleagues not social distancing, and obviously socialising, that’ll surely do it. Remember it’s the bullshit in parliament that counts.
    Indeed the irony is that sometimes pictures can be less revealing than people expect.

    Without pictures people's minds run away from them. The idea in many people's heads of "parties" will be thinking almost rave style not shit Zoom quizzes or socially distanced drinks in a garden, or beer in hand with a Korma.

    If the rest of the pictures are like we've seen so far, it'll be a damp squib, as its less than expectations.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,726
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    I hadn't realised that the likely Democratic candidate for Pennsylvania's open Senate seat, Fetterman, suffered a stroke and had a pacemaker installed this week.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    It can if the whip is removed and they refuse to resign.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,084
    Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology

    The madness deepens, and widens
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    Farooq said:

    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    Nothing they can do about it though, I believe. If XXXX XXXX turns up, who's going to turn him away and on what grounds?
    The Speaker can I believe, if he believes people might be at risk.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,541
    Exclusive: Ministry of Defence cuts Help For Heroes’ ties with Prince Harry’s Invictus Games @HelpforHeroes @WeAreInvictus

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/royal-family/2022/05/17/exclusive-ministry-defence-cuts-help-heroes-ties-prince-harrys/
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    Farooq said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Farooq said:

    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    Nothing they can do about it though, I believe. If XXXX XXXX turns up, who's going to turn him away and on what grounds?
    The Speaker can I believe, if he believes people might be at risk.
    That's a step up from him being an inconvenient embarrassment though.
    I guess if the allegations involve people who work at the HoC, it's possible, but I have no clue what the specifics are.
    Would you want to be in a lift with any Tory MP over 50 at present, else? Either sex/gender is at risk. Or both. One must be equal opportunity, remember.
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    It can if the whip is removed and they refuse to resign.
    The party whip is not relevant here. Having it removed has no impact on their rights as MPs
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,086
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Take home pay?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,084
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Leon said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    It surely depends on what happens to Starmer over ChickenKormaGate
    Indeed, there's a reason why Tory MPs have shut up about it.

    If Starmer resigns it changes everything.
    Yes, but conversely, if Starmer gets a rap on the knuckles, but no actual fine (like Big Dom C) and then decides to brazen it out (quite likely) then that gives Boris moral breathing space, and the PM would likely survive

  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    Has pension deduction been allowed for?
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,086
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    Works part-time?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    tlg86 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Take home pay?
    Still not right. She clearly does not work full time.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,539
    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
    Every November 1990 poll and all but 1 October 1990 poll until Heseltine announced he would challenge Thatcher on 14th November had the Tories over 10% behind Kinnock Labour.

    The gap only narrowed after therefore on the assumption amongst voters Thatcher would be replaced as Tory leader and PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    So Boris will therefore stay given no current poll has the Tories over 10% behind even with no leadership challenge or VONC yet announced
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    Leon said:

    Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology

    The madness deepens, and widens

    I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 19,411
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    There's a real wider issue here.

    The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.

    The teacher recruitment stats for next year are pretty grisly (see https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1518908261734436865 for graphic graphs) and the situation for support staff is, if anything, worse.

    The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.

    And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    MikeSmithson said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    It can if the whip is removed and they refuse to resign.
    The party whip is not relevant here. Having it removed has no impact on their rights as MPs
    Precisely my point!

    Having the whip but not turning up for years isn't viable. But in these circumstances once the individual is identified normally the whip is removed but the whips can't do anything beyond that prior to a prosecution.

    If the whips remove the whip, then if the individual chooses to stay at home for upto 2.5 years until the next General Election then they're perfectly within their rights to do so.

    PS 1-2 Liverpool, what a goal!
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    edited May 2022
    turbotubbs said:

    tlg86 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Take home pay?
    Still not right. She clearly does not work full time.
    Police constables (note, not even a detective constable) is over 40K at top of scale. If she is not their after 23 years she is shit at her job).
  • MikeSmithsonMikeSmithson Posts: 7,382
    HYUFD said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
    Every November 1990 poll and all but 1 October 1990 poll until Heseltine announced he would challenge Thatcher on 14th November had the Tories over 10% behind Kinnock Labour.

    The gap only narrowed after therefore on the assumption amongst voters Thatcher would be replaced as Tory leader and PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    So Boris will therefore stay given no current poll has the Tories over 10% behind even with no leadership challenge or VONC yet announced
    You also need to add a large part of the Green poll figures to LAB
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,541
    Exclusive

    Internal government polling has found that a windfall tax on oil and gas firms is “wildly popular” with voters.

    As many as 8 in 10 people backed it. Energy firms likened to “corporate cowboys” in research. Explains why some ministers are warming to the idea.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1526656541633482752

    Meanwhile...

    BREAKING: The House of Commons votes by 310 to 248 against Labour's motion to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526627233925894146

    Not a single Conservative MP voted in favour of imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526633234225942529


    Hey, lads. Why not start a trade war instead...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    edited May 2022
    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    Pension could be more than 12% of gross salary. And it's take home pay that is the issue, not deferred benefit (the latter cannot be eaten yet).

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658720/PPS_2015_Members__Guide.pdf
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    MikeSmithson said:

    HYUFD said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
    Every November 1990 poll and all but 1 October 1990 poll until Heseltine announced he would challenge Thatcher on 14th November had the Tories over 10% behind Kinnock Labour.

    The gap only narrowed after therefore on the assumption amongst voters Thatcher would be replaced as Tory leader and PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    So Boris will therefore stay given no current poll has the Tories over 10% behind even with no leadership challenge or VONC yet announced
    You also need to add a large part of the Green poll figures to LAB
    Then you'd need to take away a large part of LAB for swingback.

    Or we could just take the figures as they are, with a pinch of salt for being midterms.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    It’s out of order to attack the HS for poor pay when she is clearly not working full time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Gonna be really annoying if Tottenham are the reason Liverpool don't win the title.
  • JSpringJSpring Posts: 107
    MoonRabbit said:

    EPG said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    londonpubman said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?

    As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.

    Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
    Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
    Or Starmer in other words you mean.

    But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.

    Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁

    Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
    Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
    No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.

    Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
    Got to make a fairly rare post of mine on here on this. All of the most recent national polling has Labor on an average of around 54% on a two party basis, which is what matters. Australian polling is generally amongst the best in the world, and even the polling disaster of the 2019 election was within the margin of error. The Coalition could still win but in no way is it justified to write Labor off (or even not still make them the favourites).

    If this was just a standard political discussion site then I wouldn't be bothering posting this, but as betting is involved I feel that a sense of proportion should be advocated (FFS).
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,236
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    Leon said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    I reckon the publication of the Sue Gray report, replete with pictures leaked to the media, will be the tipping point.

    It surely depends on what happens to Starmer over ChickenKormaGate
    Indeed, there's a reason why Tory MPs have shut up about it.

    If Starmer resigns it changes everything.
    I think Starmer's staying will be worse for Boris: the Tories will then be fighting an election with crooked Boris vs Mr Rules - a juxtaposition that will make them queasy. If Starmer goes then Boris will play the 'more fool him' card and the ensuing crisis within Labour might even be existential. Nevertheless, Boris will have made contingency plans for both eventualities and will probably dig in either way.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    HYUFD said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
    Every November 1990 poll and all but 1 October 1990 poll until Heseltine announced he would challenge Thatcher on 14th November had the Tories over 10% behind Kinnock Labour.

    The gap only narrowed after therefore on the assumption amongst voters Thatcher would be replaced as Tory leader and PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    So Boris will therefore stay given no current poll has the Tories over 10% behind even with no leadership challenge or VONC yet announced
    But polling is different these days though? Do you think Greens will get 8% on election night, or it flows to Labour? That could be the reason why Labour lead, though consistent, doesn’t look so unmountable, hence less pressure on Boris as you say?

    Could it be an argument based on fools gold.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 129,539
    edited May 2022
    MikeSmithson said:

    HYUFD said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    In late 1990 Thatcher's Tories were over 10% behind Kinnock Labour in most polls, Starmer Labour does not lead Johnson's Tories by over 10% in any current poll.

    Johnson will likely survive even a by election loss in both seats therefore, even if he faces a VONC after

    I don’t doubt you are right in what you say, but the polls leading up to Lady Thatcher going even have a deficit of just 2 and only one in double figures.

    image

    So maybe Boris can go too even without his long time behind not being quite in double digit?

    You could be saying, the pollsters giving greens 7 and 8 so unlikely on General Election night, so small Labour leads, are actually keeping Big Dog in a job?
    Every November 1990 poll and all but 1 October 1990 poll until Heseltine announced he would challenge Thatcher on 14th November had the Tories over 10% behind Kinnock Labour.

    The gap only narrowed after therefore on the assumption amongst voters Thatcher would be replaced as Tory leader and PM

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_1992_United_Kingdom_general_election

    So Boris will therefore stay given no current poll has the Tories over 10% behind even with no leadership challenge or VONC yet announced
    You also need to add a large part of the Green poll figures to LAB
    You could also add some of the RefUK poll figure to CONs, RefUK polling at least 3% in most polls. If you do, even if you added most of the Greens share to Labour, Labour would still not be over 10% ahead.

    Indeed with Comres' latest poll even if you added the entire Green score to Labour, which won't happen and no RefUK votes to the Tories, Labour would not be more than 10% ahead
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    Pension could be more than 12% of gross salary.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658720/PPS_2015_Members__Guide.pdf
    DCs start on 31k plus, 88% of that is 24,800, well over 1,200 a month and that's if she hasn't progressed at all in 23 years and only just got DC.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    JSpring said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    EPG said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    londonpubman said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?

    As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.

    Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
    Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
    Or Starmer in other words you mean.

    But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.

    Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁

    Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
    Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
    No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.

    Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
    Got to make a fairly rare post of mine on here on this. All of the most recent national polling has Labor on an average of around 54% on a two party basis, which is what matters. Australian polling is generally amongst the best in the world, and even the polling disaster of the 2019 election was within the margin of error. The Coalition could still win but in no way is it justified to write Labor off (or even not still make them the favourites).

    If this was just a standard political discussion site then I wouldn't be bothering posting this, but as betting is involved I feel that a sense of proportion should be advocated (FFS).
    Exactly. These questions are asked, and there is a big difference between feeling uneasy in your gut and proclaiming an outcome. Cheap talk should be kept for places where no money or reputations are on the line, like Reddit.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 123,252
    kle4 said:

    Gonna be really annoying if Tottenham are the reason Liverpool don't win the title.

    Losing to Leicester is the kicker for me.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,086
    Stuartinromford said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    There's a real wider issue here.

    The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.

    The teacher recruitment stats for next year are pretty grisly (see https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1518908261734436865 for graphic graphs) and the situation for support staff is, if anything, worse.

    The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.

    And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
    I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.

    The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,541
    kle4 said:

    I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?

    310 Tories apparently...
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive

    Internal government polling has found that a windfall tax on oil and gas firms is “wildly popular” with voters.

    As many as 8 in 10 people backed it. Energy firms likened to “corporate cowboys” in research. Explains why some ministers are warming to the idea.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1526656541633482752

    Meanwhile...

    BREAKING: The House of Commons votes by 310 to 248 against Labour's motion to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526627233925894146

    Not a single Conservative MP voted in favour of imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526633234225942529


    Hey, lads. Why not start a trade war instead...

    I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
    "Tax others not me" is polling popularly is a dog bites me story, even Scott must know that.

    Taxing firms we're wanting to invest in the UK isn't always smart though, but Scott and Labour probably thinks F*ck Business to coin a phrase.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?

    310 Tories apparently...
    They don't support the policy, does that mean they think it would be unpopular?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,380
    edited May 2022
    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive

    Internal government polling has found that a windfall tax on oil and gas firms is “wildly popular” with voters.

    As many as 8 in 10 people backed it. Energy firms likened to “corporate cowboys” in research. Explains why some ministers are warming to the idea.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1526656541633482752

    Meanwhile...

    BREAKING: The House of Commons votes by 310 to 248 against Labour's motion to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526627233925894146

    Not a single Conservative MP voted in favour of imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526633234225942529


    Hey, lads. Why not start a trade war instead...

    You clearly did not listen to the debate where Rishi told the energy companies to invest in the UK or he was open to a windfall tax

    A trade war is a long way off by the way if at all
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    MoonRabbit said:

    Mexicanpete said:

    ...

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting post.
    Since locals clear uptick in Lib Dem polling, greens solid too, this coming mostly at Labour expense and the gap between the two main parties as smaller, though no obvious bounce in the Tory share whilst Lab Lib Green combined seems on the higher end of scale from each pollster.

    HOWEVER. Within this trend of smaller Labour leads because of explained locals bounce, we are due monthly Kantor, tick tock, that never gives Labour much lead the best of times, there could be long shot betting opportunity to bet on the first Tory lead in a long while?

    That is certainly on the horizon for when a disgraced Starmer has to resign in lockdown-busting shame in a week or two, whilst Johnson doesn't have to.
    No I don’t think so. The Kantor only comes out once a month and is due now, not in a few weeks.

    Starmer resigning without trying to hang on might boost Labour a bit, or at very least put pressure on Boris and Tory ratings, so that may not throw up the Tory lead you predict.

    When the new Labour leader appointed they sure to get a bounce and honeymoon, even if they then turn out to be a dud and start going backwards against the Tories. However, the period between Starmer’s resignation and Nandy or Streetings (based on current betting) crowning, period they effectively don’t have proper leader, could see the Tories build up a poll lead again.

    What would Labour actually do without Starmer and Rayner overnight. Due to nature of their going (lawmaker lawbreakers) and promise to go, they couldn’t remotely hang on till successor found - Labour would have to turn to a grandee as mind the shop leader? Like Harriet Harman, Dianne Abbott, Margaret Beckett.

    Or I think Ed Milliband, who has worn the captains armband before, but won’t be standing for leadership. Ed v Boris might be funky enough to prevent a Tory lead at least until new leader honeymoon is over.

    How analytical and fair about Labour is this post and prospects of next Tory lead?
    I suspect “interim leader” doesn’t count in “next leader” bets?

    But is there a “Labour interim leader” market? as I’m thinking now Boris v Ed is a strong bet for this summer till new Labour leader in September.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    wooliedyed said:

    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    Pension could be more than 12% of gross salary.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658720/PPS_2015_Members__Guide.pdf
    DCs start on 31k plus, 88% of that is 24,800, well over 1,200 a month and that's if she hasn't progressed at all in 23 years and only just got DC.

    The take home salary is the issue here. NI and IT have to be deducted fxrom whatever 88% or slightly less is left after pension contribs, so 1.2K a month THP is beginning to make sense.

  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,726
    Farooq said:

    LostPassword said:

    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Farooq said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Farooq said:

    And with a possible third sex-pest by-election rising with the dawn, there is no end to the opportunities for voters to give their verdict.

    I think the Conservatives have given up listening to any bad news, though.

    That would not occur until a conviction, likely to be around or after the next election
    Not true. Resignation could happen at any moment. We'll see how much bother XXXXX XXXXX is in and whether he has the decency to resign. It wouldn't surprise me to see a swift exit on a "concentrate on fighting to clear my name" basis.
    If a Minister resigning to backbenches is normally done 'to clear name'.

    If not a Minister, then staying on backbenches can be done, without the whip, for years.
    The whips have asked the MP in question not to turn up to the Commons. That can't go on for years.
    Nothing they can do about it though, I believe. If XXXX XXXX turns up, who's going to turn him away and on what grounds?
    Parish was forced to resign. I don't think female MPs are going to tolerate sharing the House with sexually abusive male MPs. A way would be found.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,086
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    Gonna be really annoying if Tottenham are the reason Liverpool don't win the title.

    Losing to Leicester is the kicker for me.
    Yeah, that was a big surprise given Leicester played on 26 December and Liverpool didn't.

    And, thankfully, Liverpool failed to score. :)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    Gonna be really annoying if Tottenham are the reason Liverpool don't win the title.

    Losing to Leicester is the kicker for me.
    I live with a West Ham fan, that was a rough one.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    Scott_xP said:

    kle4 said:

    I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?

    310 Tories apparently...
    Or shock, horror government MPs might not actually just be operating on a basis of opinion polls.

    If every "popular" tax or spending policy was implemented that'd be a dreadfully dystopian way to run the economy.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,541
    The Government just shamefully voted against Labour’s motion to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas producers to cut your bills.

    When it comes to helping those who need it most with the cost of living the Tories side with the bosses rather than with you.
    https://twitter.com/Christian4BuryS/status/1526632593965334529
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 44,881
    edited May 2022
    kle4 said:

    Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.

    ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 22,107
    One wonders what Boris has to do to get the sack.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,084
    MikeSmithson said:

    Leon said:

    Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology

    The madness deepens, and widens

    I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
    She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home

    So, yes, educationally cancelled
  • CookieCookie Posts: 15,782
    Carnyx said:

    kle4 said:

    Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.

    ISTR that one MP was challenged to live on 30p and old lollipop sticks, or whatever was the current SB rate, in a TV programme and coudl barely cope for a week even without replacement of medium and major items like shoes. I think he was Tory, so in the Major eyars?
    Matthew Paris, I think.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    edited May 2022
    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    Pension could be more than 12% of gross salary.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658720/PPS_2015_Members__Guide.pdf
    DCs start on 31k plus, 88% of that is 24,800, well over 1,200 a month and that's if she hasn't progressed at all in 23 years and only just got DC.

    The take home salary is the issue here. NI and IT have to be deducted fxrom whatever 88% or slightly less is left after pension contribs, so 1.2K a month THP is beginning to make sense.

    24k for example is just under 1650 a month
    She's on minimum of 27k gross if she's paying pension and full time and has never had an increase since becoming a DC and was below 31k when promoted
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    tlg86 said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    There's a real wider issue here.

    The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.

    The teacher recruitment stats for next year are pretty grisly (see https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1518908261734436865 for graphic graphs) and the situation for support staff is, if anything, worse.

    The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.

    And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
    I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.

    The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
    But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    Carnyx said:

    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    Pension could be more than 12% of gross salary.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/658720/PPS_2015_Members__Guide.pdf
    DCs start on 31k plus, 88% of that is 24,800, well over 1,200 a month and that's if she hasn't progressed at all in 23 years and only just got DC.

    The take home salary is the issue here. NI and IT have to be deducted fxrom whatever 88% or slightly less is left after pension contribs, so 1.2K a month THP is beginning to make sense.

    Not for a D.C. with 23 years experience. I am pretty sure she is including childcare, or mortgage, or does not work a full week. It will come out.
    My wife’s salary is £37k and take home is £2300. She pays pension, IT and NI. Pension will be a bit different, but I cannot see how her account stacks up unless we do not have the whole story.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Jonathan said:

    One wonders what Boris has to do to get the sack.

    Well that's really the issue, isn't it - he has gotten the sack multiple times in his various careers, so it is provably easy for him to take actions which will see him sacked. That's why he needs to be at the top of politics, because it means he cannot be sacked no matter what he does.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,384
    Squeaky bum at the City Ground.
    Headed for extra time.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Personally I'd pay MPs a bit more and really cut back on allowances and expenses, but no way that'd be a popular policy.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    Leon said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Leon said:

    Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology

    The madness deepens, and widens

    I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
    She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home

    So, yes, educationally cancelled
    A school child was bullied?

    Without knowing more that's horrible, but not especially unusual sadly and not particularly "cancelled" either. Won't be the first, won't be the last girl at school to be a victim of bullying that the school hasn't done enough to protect, that's all too common sadly and has nothing to do with ideology normally.
  • lintolinto Posts: 48
    wooliedyed said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    I make it her gross salary is circa 19k per year.

    £1,200 reads as take home pay
    Still doesn’t sound right for a D.C. with that length of service.
    She clearly works part time hours or has unique garnishments. I'm not sure what the HS is meant to do about that.
    That's starting pay for a probationary PC. Her wage will be at least £40k plus unless she's part-time.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 64,084
    BartholomewRoberts said:

    Leon said:

    MikeSmithson said:

    Leon said:

    Horrendous story in the Times (££) about some schoolgirl being cancelled for merely questioning Trans ideology

    The madness deepens, and widens

    I don't understand your use of the word cancelled here.
    She was ostracized at her school, was forced to work in the library; the teachers - initially supportive - stopped protecting her and pathetically sided with the bullies, and she has now left the school entirely, and is studying at home

    So, yes, educationally cancelled
    A school child was bullied?

    Without knowing more that's horrible, but not especially unusual sadly and not particularly "cancelled" either. Won't be the first, won't be the last girl at school to be a victim of bullying that the school hasn't done enough to protect, that's all too common sadly and has nothing to do with ideology normally.
    Read the story
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 27,086
    EPG said:

    tlg86 said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    There's a real wider issue here.

    The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.

    The teacher recruitment stats for next year are pretty grisly (see https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1518908261734436865 for graphic graphs) and the situation for support staff is, if anything, worse.

    The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.

    And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
    I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.

    The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
    But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
    If the public sector has made that case, it's passed me by. It might not get such a positive reaction from ethnic minority staff...
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 4,770
    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?

  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 52,592
    TheScreamingEagles said:

    kle4 said:

    Gonna be really annoying if Tottenham are the reason Liverpool don't win the title.

    Losing to Leicester is the kicker for me.
    Cracking game that in our season.

    All 4 games that Foxjr2 came to Leicester won.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,384
    edited May 2022
    kle4 said:

    Not that we really want a competition to see who is the poorest MP, but I'd actually kind of like if when a stereotypical 'Could you live on X?' question was thrown at one that they were bold enough to say 'I could actually' and then prove it.

    I believe Dave Nellist used to live off Unemployment Benefit. Or claimed to. I don't know the veracity.
    There was a Tory who tried in the 80's or 90's. He spent up in a day ISTR.
    Another managed. But admitted he couldn't take a second week.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,838
    edited May 2022
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?

    See points above (below). Does not stack up for a D.C. after 23 years of service and a full time role.
    Sorry - missed mortgage. But why quote after mortgage? Who does that?
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,582
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?

    £300 per week after mortgage is enough to live on if that's the question and I'm not sure what the mortgage has to do with the Home Secretary if that's been included.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 14,394
    edited May 2022
    JSpring said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    EPG said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    londonpubman said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?

    As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.

    Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
    Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
    Or Starmer in other words you mean.

    But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.

    Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁

    Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
    Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
    No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.

    Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
    Got to make a fairly rare post of mine on here on this. All of the most recent national polling has Labor on an average of around 54% on a two party basis, which is what matters. Australian polling is generally amongst the best in the world, and even the polling disaster of the 2019 election was within the margin of error. The Coalition could still win but in no way is it justified to write Labor off (or even not still make them the favourites).

    If this was just a standard political discussion site then I wouldn't be bothering posting this, but as betting is involved I feel that a sense of proportion should be advocated (FFS).
    I like your post. Thanks for springing up and sharing it. You still have Labour favourites 🙂 and despite the clear direction of travel in recent polling. I think it’s clear direction of travel of recent polls HY and myself being swung by. I stuck out against HY’s confidence for months and weeks now, but the polls have tightened too much for me in last week for me to call it as Labour win as I was doing for so long. Are you not seeing the late swingback we are and HY clearly explained?

    This is the real moment money is made in political betting, where we disagree strongly with each other, suggesting it could go one of two ways? I think it looks very tight. When looking tight, those with the momentum tend to win it?
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,824
    MoonRabbit said:

    EPG said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    HYUFD said:

    londonpubman said:

    MoonRabbit said:

    Political betting news. Since voting began in Australian election, the polling has been the worst yet for Labour. There’s clearly been a lot of swingback from midterm, or even more than mid term, just few months ago, in this election; the trend is not Labours friend, they don’t appear to have gained any momentum from the campaign. It might still be tight, but the smart bet now is no change of government?

    As I have posted on here before Labor often flatter to deceive in Australia.

    Don't write off Liberal/National coalition yet! So basically I am agreeing with you 👍
    Albanese is an Australian Kinnock and Ed Miliband all in one
    Or Starmer in other words you mean.

    But it looks like the more Charismatic and Aggressive right wing politician, miles behind on polls and ratings for nearly all the parliament, has swung back to beat another weak opponent and win again.

    Let’s hope not setting a trend. 🙁

    Looking at everything a couple of months back, I was so sure there was no way back 🙁

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2022_Australian_federal_election
    Correct me if I'm wrong but due to Australia's electoral system, close to 100% of Green votes will flow to Labor (or elect Greens themselves). Plus this time, there are a bunch of independents who are an anti-Coalition force? So the question is really who is gaining from Labor's decline?
    No point trying to build false hope, I’ve written opposition off in this one. The campaign momentum and swing back is undeniable now. I called it wrong couple of months ago.

    Tying kangaroos down for sport sounds cruel anyway 😕
    Blimey. I just looked at those polls. What’s happened in the campaign? That’s some turnaround, and very clearly this election team is about to get a call from the U.K. Tories again.
  • dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,323
    Poor picture selection from Daily Mirror.

    https://twitter.com/fleetstreetfox/status/1526655227755216896

    It belittles their article on the impact on servicemen of the 1956 A bomb tests.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?

    Not sure mortgage can be put at the door of the Home Secretary - when we set out what we are having to live on we surely list the take home amount, not take home amount minus mortgage but not minus anything else?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 13,359
    Daveyboy1961 said:

    turbotubbs said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    How is her salary £14,400 a year? Am I missing something?
    Perhaps that's the money she has left after tax, NI, Poll tax, and mortgage?

    Then she wouldn't need to use a foodbank. 100 for a TV and net package, 250 for leccy and gas, 300 to run a car, 50 for water, 600 for food and the rest
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    tlg86 said:

    EPG said:

    tlg86 said:

    Stuartinromford said:

    TheScreamingEagles said:

    My God, things are getting so bad that some rozzers might be open to corruption now, because coppers would never do anything corrupt.


    A police officer has confronted the Home Secretary about pay and conditions in the service telling her in stark terms she can no longer afford to live on her salary.

    Detective Constable Vicky Knight, who has 23-years service with North Wales Police, said she had resorted to visiting a food bank and had to borrow money from her parents each month to help feed her 13-year-old son.

    The 46-year-old, who is a single parent, confronted Ms Patel following her keynote speech at the Police Federation conference in Manchester, asking her “could you afford to live on £1,200 a month?”

    She said many of her colleagues were becoming increasingly desperate and warned that the financial pressure could result in some officers becoming open to corruption.

    https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/17/can-no-longer-afford-police-officer-23-year-veteran-tells-priti/

    There's a real wider issue here.

    The public sector can genuinely afford to pay less to its staff than the private sector; more stability, nicer conditions, warmer fuzzies. But that only goes so far, and we're awfully close to that point.

    The teacher recruitment stats for next year are pretty grisly (see https://twitter.com/JackWorthNFER/status/1518908261734436865 for graphic graphs) and the situation for support staff is, if anything, worse.

    The increasing flexible working conditions in the private sector have stolen one of the trump cards that the government has played as an employer.

    And if schools'n'hospitals stop working because of a simple lack of people, voters are going to notice.
    I suspect the private sector is bad for this too, but as a civil servant myself, I can attest that people don't get paid for their utility. They get paid for their seniority.

    The public want good teachers and nurses. They don't want diversity and inclusion workers on £60,000 a year.
    But the ethnic minority staff may want those workers, or move to good private sector employers where it's a matter of course.
    If the public sector has made that case, it's passed me by. It might not get such a positive reaction from ethnic minority staff...
    I just mean there is a reason why (say) a Big Four accountancy firm, a giant tech company or other large employers tend to have inclusion and diversity teams.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 15,154
    kle4 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Exclusive

    Internal government polling has found that a windfall tax on oil and gas firms is “wildly popular” with voters.

    As many as 8 in 10 people backed it. Energy firms likened to “corporate cowboys” in research. Explains why some ministers are warming to the idea.
    https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1526656541633482752

    Meanwhile...

    BREAKING: The House of Commons votes by 310 to 248 against Labour's motion to impose a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526627233925894146

    Not a single Conservative MP voted in favour of imposing a windfall tax on oil and gas producers.
    https://twitter.com/AdamBienkov/status/1526633234225942529


    Hey, lads. Why not start a trade war instead...

    I don't support their recent actions re NI, but was anyone expecting 'tax oil companies' to be an unpopular policy with the public at any point in any country?
    Are there any taxes that are unpopular with the people who don't think they pay them or ever will?

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,258
    Farooq said:

    kle4 said:

    Personally I'd pay MPs a bit more and really cut back on allowances and expenses, but no way that'd be a popular policy.

    You have my vote
    Whilst I cannot promise not to let you down, I will promise that I will make any scandal bringing me down shady enough to be worthy of a Netflix thriller.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,741
    I occasionally think about GPT-3 and peer models, and ask myself who are the AI contributors to pb btl.
This discussion has been closed.

© Vanilla Keystone Theme 2025