Why LAB could struggle to get a majority – politicalbetting.com

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

I just spent a few minutes reading some of the last thread (not realising I wasn’t on the last page) before noticing there was a new one.

The free flowing meanders of an afternoon of PB are fascinating. Page 2 was full of fierce and tenacious trans related debate (without, as someone commented, anyone actually trans on the forum, something I think is badly missed because it makes the debates very hypothetical).

Page 6 was best pubs. I don’t have a favourite. Used to, should do now (I’d love if to be the Duck in Pett Bottom near the vineyard but it’s not) but don’t.

Now we’re on to polls. Last night I was - rightly - being derided for an overly precious reaction to being interrogated at Copenhagen passport control. Tonight I’m at peace (ish) with Brexit as I tuck into a bit of seafood at an extremely touristy spot in Nyhavn.

I find it fascinating (not the subject, the process) of how people can endlessly debate "trans" without the discussion ever going anywhere and it being about 84th on anyone's list of the most important issues facing the country.

I presume because it's about values and identity and so it never ends.

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

He can't. It's pretty much established that Braverman wants to stop the boats more than the rest of Sunak's piss poor decline-managers. Moving her on is essentially admitting defeat on boats, and it (and she) would unleash ten tonnes of cow pat on to him, precipitating his exit. Unless she commits a new and serious misdemeanor, she stays.

Looking at the evidence, I don't think we can stop the boats by, er, stopping the boats. The French have little real interest in stopping the people smugglers as it reduces pressure on their own asylum process and on policing the migrants near their coast. Once they are afloat and in our half of the channel then, on safety grounds alone, we have to let people land.

For the umptieth time, we can only stop illegal migration by stopping the pull factor - we must make it easy for illegal immigrants to shop those who employ them (and give them fast track right to stay if they do so) and have massive criminal penalties for the owners and managers caught doing so.

Yes, but they don't work illegally from the boats, they claim asylum.

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620315009992773633?t=MOypKT_9blB8OPReSNkXmg&s=19

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

I just spent a few minutes reading some of the last thread (not realising I wasn’t on the last page) before noticing there was a new one.

The free flowing meanders of an afternoon of PB are fascinating. Page 2 was full of fierce and tenacious trans related debate (without, as someone commented, anyone actually trans on the forum, something I think is badly missed because it makes the debates very hypothetical).

Page 6 was best pubs. I don’t have a favourite. Used to, should do now (I’d love if to be the Duck in Pett Bottom near the vineyard but it’s not) but don’t.

Now we’re on to polls. Last night I was - rightly - being derided for an overly precious reaction to being interrogated at Copenhagen passport control. Tonight I’m at peace (ish) with Brexit as I tuck into a bit of seafood at an extremely touristy spot in Nyhavn.

I find it fascinating (not the subject, the process) of how people can endlessly debate "trans" without the discussion ever going anywhere and it being about 84th on anyone's list of the most important issues facing the country.

I presume because it's about values and identity and so it never ends.

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

He can't. It's pretty much established that Braverman wants to stop the boats more than the rest of Sunak's piss poor decline-managers. Moving her on is essentially admitting defeat on boats, and it (and she) would unleash ten tonnes of cow pat on to him, precipitating his exit. Unless she commits a new and serious misdemeanor, she stays.

Looking at the evidence, I don't think we can stop the boats by, er, stopping the boats. The French have little real interest in stopping the people smugglers as it reduces pressure on their own asylum process and on policing the migrants near their coast. Once they are afloat and in our half of the channel then, on safety grounds alone, we have to let people land.

For the umptieth time, we can only stop illegal migration by stopping the pull factor - we must make it easy for illegal immigrants to shop those who employ them (and give them fast track right to stay if they do so) and have massive criminal penalties for the owners and managers caught doing so.

Yes, but they don't work illegally from the boats, they claim asylum.

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620315009992773633?t=MOypKT_9blB8OPReSNkXmg&s=19

Understood. If they come in illegally on the boats then they should not be allowed to claim asylum. And yes I know we then have a problem because France won't let us send them back across the channel.

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

Gardenwalker said:

This is an excellent piece on the moral ambition behind Thatcherism and how it has utterly failed, creating a class of self-entitled boomers who, on average, take far more than they ever put into the system.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/boomers-and-the-ultimate-failure?utm_source=direct&r=atl4u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It also suggests the Tories are fucked for some time, and that we are on the eve of a great change, equivalent to 1945 and 1979.

I think I agree with all of it.

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

Scruffy man with his hands permanently thrust in someone else's pockets.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/01/watchdog-examines-220000-public-funding-for-boris-johnson-partygate-defence

I hope you had a good strike day. Accomplish anything?

A lot of sleep.
I am not a member of the striking Union so technically wasn't. The school was closed but they wanted everyone in, including supply, for somewhat mysterious reasons.
I told them I needed a "personal mental health day" (I really did, the past week has been brutal with assaults on pretty much all my colleagues), and would rather take it today than when the kids were in.
I thought I was doing them a favour since they could avoid paying me.
Instead they seemed pissed off.
I suspect they had some busywork motivation bollocks planned.

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

Casino_Royale said:

Gardenwalker said:

This is an excellent piece on the moral ambition behind Thatcherism and how it has utterly failed, creating a class of self-entitled boomers who, on average, take far more than they ever put into the system.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/boomers-and-the-ultimate-failure?utm_source=direct&r=atl4u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It also suggests the Tories are fucked for some time, and that we are on the eve of a great change, equivalent to 1945 and 1979.

I think I agree with all of it.

The problem the Tories have is not enough popular capitalism, not too much.

In 1979 they stood up against vested interests to allow young people to buy their own homes - and hence won the youth vote
- and today they defend vested interests whilst young people are priced out of the market, and they've whacked them with tuition fees on top, effectively a massive tax increase.

That's the problem. Tory vote and home ownership is strongly correlated, and always has been. I don't think this is anything new. Capitalism works when it's spread far and wide.

Yes, young people today have slightly different values - as every consecutive generation does - but there's not a tide of socialism sweeping over them.

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Pensioners get a holiday every week and one of the best payrises in the nation.

algarkirk said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

I just spent a few minutes reading some of the last thread (not realising I wasn’t on the last page) before noticing there was a new one.

The free flowing meanders of an afternoon of PB are fascinating. Page 2 was full of fierce and tenacious trans related debate (without, as someone commented, anyone actually trans on the forum, something I think is badly missed because it makes the debates very hypothetical).

Page 6 was best pubs. I don’t have a favourite. Used to, should do now (I’d love if to be the Duck in Pett Bottom near the vineyard but it’s not) but don’t.

Now we’re on to polls. Last night I was - rightly - being derided for an overly precious reaction to being interrogated at Copenhagen passport control. Tonight I’m at peace (ish) with Brexit as I tuck into a bit of seafood at an extremely touristy spot in Nyhavn.

I find it fascinating (not the subject, the process) of how people can endlessly debate "trans" without the discussion ever going anywhere and it being about 84th on anyone's list of the most important issues facing the country.

I presume because it's about values and identity and so it never ends.

It must be a proxy for something important, like: Who is in charge of the progressive movement. Maybe it is the moment for a split between the liberal Progressive Front and the woke Front for Progress.

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Tres said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

This is an excellent piece on the moral ambition behind Thatcherism and how it has utterly failed, creating a class of self-entitled boomers who, on average, take far more than they ever put into the system.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/boomers-and-the-ultimate-failure?utm_source=direct&r=atl4u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It also suggests the Tories are fucked for some time, and that we are on the eve of a great change, equivalent to 1945 and 1979.

I think I agree with all of it.

It is an article which ignores the fact most pensioners did not grow up wealthy, have created wealth and assets for their children and grandchildren, paid into the system all their lives despite never having had the opportunity to go to university much more of today's generation did, were more family oriented and generally do a lot for the community and voluntary work.

It is an article written by a libertarian with little interest in family or the wider community

That generation (which includes my parents, who did not go to university) had - broadly speaking - the advantage of a rapidly growing economy, a generous welfare state, cheaper housing, and increasing class mobility.

Lucky them.

Unfortunately, they have hoarded their assets and economic growth has slowed. Their children, unless they inherit (and note the statistic in there about who benefits from inheritance) are being given no hope.

They will not stand for it, and their time is coming.

The average young person will inherit though, as the average parent and grandparent is a home owner. The may inherit more in London and the Home counties but house prices are highest there anyway

They'll inherit after they retire. What good is that?

No they will inherit from grandparents in their late 20s and 30s, which helps with a deposit. They may well then inherit from their parents in their 60s too to get a bigger property

Does this happen in 21st Century Britain, or in Postman Pat's Greendale?

It happens all over the country. Certainly in the South (housing more affordable North of the Watford Gap anyway)

ohnotnow said:

Leon said:

Scott_xP said:

Leon said:

Why Braverman? I know you hate her because she’s a right wing HS, but electorally she is on the button. She has told the Tories that if they don’t stop the boats they are FUCKED. And she is damn right

She broke the ministerial code, so she should not be a minister.

And as she is a minister, her job is to STOP THE BOATS.

By your own standard, she is useless.

Why keep her in post?

Well then sure, in that case

But is there any potential replacement who is MORE likely to stop the boats? Can’t see it. Braverman will probably fail as well, but at least she looks determined, and she is unruffled by Woke critiques

I read some persuasive analysis today which said that a lot of the disillusionment with Brexit (and, hence, the Tories) is because of the lamentable failure on immigration. Many Brexit voters voted to take back control of the borders. The Tories promised to do this. Instead we have record immigration AND the Dinghy People.

So the Brexiteers who were mainly concerned with migration (eg in the Red Wall) have rightly deserted the Tories - and Brexit. The sovereigntist liberal leavers, like me, are still fine with Brexit, I never cared about Polish plumbers anyway (tho I respect the votes of those that do)

The analysis further reckoned that much of this sentiment is hidden because people are reluctant to admit to misgivings about migration and asylum seekers etc. My hunch is: this is right

TLDR: Tories are gonna lose bad. They have already failed on migration

The cynical part of me expects an them to shift checks from lorries to boats - reducing the headline boat figure in the hope that the press goes with that as the headline rather than '20 dead found in back of frozen food truck'.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

On topic, how do current polls compare with those in the run up to the 1997 election in this regard? My recollection is that Labour's 1997 success relied as much on Tory voters sitting on their hands as direct switchers from Tory to Labour, but I'd be very interested in seeing the numbers.

kjh said:

HYUFD said:

Mexicanpete said:

HYUFD said:

Tres said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

This is an excellent piece on the moral ambition behind Thatcherism and how it has utterly failed, creating a class of self-entitled boomers who, on average, take far more than they ever put into the system.

https://open.substack.com/pub/samf/p/boomers-and-the-ultimate-failure?utm_source=direct&r=atl4u&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web

It also suggests the Tories are fucked for some time, and that we are on the eve of a great change, equivalent to 1945 and 1979.

I think I agree with all of it.

It is an article which ignores the fact most pensioners did not grow up wealthy, have created wealth and assets for their children and grandchildren, paid into the system all their lives despite never having had the opportunity to go to university much more of today's generation did, were more family oriented and generally do a lot for the community and voluntary work.

It is an article written by a libertarian with little interest in family or the wider community

That generation (which includes my parents, who did not go to university) had - broadly speaking - the advantage of a rapidly growing economy, a generous welfare state, cheaper housing, and increasing class mobility.

Lucky them.

Unfortunately, they have hoarded their assets and economic growth has slowed. Their children, unless they inherit (and note the statistic in there about who benefits from inheritance) are being given no hope.

They will not stand for it, and their time is coming.

The average young person will inherit though, as the average parent and grandparent is a home owner. The may inherit more in London and the Home counties but house prices are highest there anyway

They'll inherit after they retire. What good is that?

No they will inherit from grandparents in their late 20s and 30s, which helps with a deposit. They may well then inherit from their parents in their 60s too to get a bigger property

Does this happen in 21st Century Britain, or in Postman Pat's Greendale?

It happens all over the country. Certainly in the South (housing more affordable North of the Watford Gap anyway)

Does it? Or is that what has happened to you? Are you assuming it happens to everyone else? Because it doesn't. I'm 68. My grandparents are dead but I didn't inherit anything from them. My dad is still alive so I have inherited nothing so far. And when I do l won't need it, because I am making my own way in life and I'm 10 times more wealthy than my parents through my own efforts and not by scrounging off them. Happy for them to spend every penny they have and not give it to me.

It is very sad that you think it is ok to wait for parents to die.

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

He can't. It's pretty much established that Braverman wants to stop the boats more than the rest of Sunak's piss poor decline-managers. Moving her on is essentially admitting defeat on boats, and it (and she) would unleash ten tonnes of cow pat on to him, precipitating his exit. Unless she commits a new and serious misdemeanor, she stays.

Looking at the evidence, I don't think we can stop the boats by, er, stopping the boats. The French have little real interest in stopping the people smugglers as it reduces pressure on their own asylum process and on policing the migrants near their coast. Once they are afloat and in our half of the channel then, on safety grounds alone, we have to let people land.

For the umptieth time, we can only stop illegal migration by stopping the pull factor - we must make it easy for illegal immigrants to shop those who employ them (and give them fast track right to stay if they do so) and have massive criminal penalties for the owners and managers caught doing so.

Yes, but they don't work illegally from the boats, they claim asylum.

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620315009992773633?t=MOypKT_9blB8OPReSNkXmg&s=19

Understood. If they come in illegally on the boats then they should not be allowed to claim asylum. And yes I know we then have a problem because France won't let us send them back across the channel.

Yes, but there are very few ways to claim asylum without entering the country first. If you ban illegal migrants from gaining asylum you effectively end asylum.

Stuartinromford said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

On topic, how do current polls compare with those in the run up to the 1997 election in this regard? My recollection is that Labour's 1997 success relied as much on Tory voters sitting on their hands as direct switchers from Tory to Labour, but I'd be very interested in seeing the numbers.

There are some numbers upthread I think; from memory Major's 14 million from 1992 lost about 2 million to Labour and 2 million to EastEnders.

What would be really interesting would be the small print from opinion polls in 1995ish.

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

The issue there is more likely prejudice against employing the over 50s.
The incentives ought to be for the employers, not the prematurely retired.

Mortimer said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

Sunak needed to display the brutality of power that Johnson did, and cull all the cabinet he didn't like, shortly to be followed by culling the backbenchers who oppose him.

He didn't, so his cabinet is a mixed bag of loonies, time servers owed favours and incompetents.

Unlike in 2019, it isn't 20 odd people who disagree with him.

C. 100 Tory backbenchers probably think the state is too big (the blue wall)

C. 75 Tory backbenchers think the state is too small (the levelling uppers)

C. 25 Tory backbenchers won't be continuing past the next GE

There is too high a risk of being ousted by either side. Sunak seems to think by becoming a do nothing uncontroversial govt he might make it through. Johnson's political nous was to realise that the 100 blue wallers could be bought off in one way, and the 75 levelling uppers in another, cancelling each other out. If he hadn't have sacked Cummings I think he'd still be bestriding British politics, as Tim Shipman said, 'like a Giant toad'....

Foxy said:

I saw a patient yesterday who had just got Leave to Remain. It took 6 years for him to prove that his life was in danger in a Middle Eastern country. He has done well with his English. When I first saw him 5 years ago he barely spoke a word, now fluent.

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Pensioners get a holiday every week and one of the best payrises in the nation.

Although it would be hard to argue that the state pension allows a champagne lifestyle. An increase of 10% on not a lot, is a bit more, but still not a lot.

The country spends £110 billion on the state pension, so the rise costs £11 billion, and adds to inflationary pressures. A lower rise and an equal one for public sector workers would have been better.

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

He can't. It's pretty much established that Braverman wants to stop the boats more than the rest of Sunak's piss poor decline-managers. Moving her on is essentially admitting defeat on boats, and it (and she) would unleash ten tonnes of cow pat on to him, precipitating his exit. Unless she commits a new and serious misdemeanor, she stays.

Looking at the evidence, I don't think we can stop the boats by, er, stopping the boats. The French have little real interest in stopping the people smugglers as it reduces pressure on their own asylum process and on policing the migrants near their coast. Once they are afloat and in our half of the channel then, on safety grounds alone, we have to let people land.

For the umptieth time, we can only stop illegal migration by stopping the pull factor - we must make it easy for illegal immigrants to shop those who employ them (and give them fast track right to stay if they do so) and have massive criminal penalties for the owners and managers caught doing so.

Yes, but they don't work illegally from the boats, they claim asylum.

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620315009992773633?t=MOypKT_9blB8OPReSNkXmg&s=19

Understood. If they come in illegally on the boats then they should not be allowed to claim asylum. And yes I know we then have a problem because France won't let us send them back across the channel.

Yes, but there are very few ways to claim asylum without entering the country first. If you ban illegal migrants from gaining asylum you effectively end asylum.

I think this is where the solution will end.

The only grounds for claiming asylum "on shore" will be that you were fleeing for your life and you had no alternative or choice before getting here, and you'd have to evidence that.

Otherwise, 48-72 hours detention and next plane back.

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

If Albanians are a big chunk of the people arriving on boats then a solution presents itself: open up tens of thousands of working visas for Albanian nationals for public sector jobs where there are acute shortages, in exchange for unfettered access to housing, health and social care to retired Brits who’d like to live out their final days in sunny unspoilt Mediterranean Albania.

Dear Lord, do you really think they're coming here because they have a burning desire to be hospital porters in Hemel Hempstead? If so, can you explain why they're not just coming on a plane from Tirana for £23?

Nigelb said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

That’s just echoing the government bullshit line.
How far below inflation would you say the public sector should be settling - how big of a pay reduction ?

Benpointer said:

Casino_Royale said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Foxy said:

ExiledInScotland said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

He can't. It's pretty much established that Braverman wants to stop the boats more than the rest of Sunak's piss poor decline-managers. Moving her on is essentially admitting defeat on boats, and it (and she) would unleash ten tonnes of cow pat on to him, precipitating his exit. Unless she commits a new and serious misdemeanor, she stays.

Looking at the evidence, I don't think we can stop the boats by, er, stopping the boats. The French have little real interest in stopping the people smugglers as it reduces pressure on their own asylum process and on policing the migrants near their coast. Once they are afloat and in our half of the channel then, on safety grounds alone, we have to let people land.

For the umptieth time, we can only stop illegal migration by stopping the pull factor - we must make it easy for illegal immigrants to shop those who employ them (and give them fast track right to stay if they do so) and have massive criminal penalties for the owners and managers caught doing so.

Yes, but they don't work illegally from the boats, they claim asylum.

https://twitter.com/refugeecouncil/status/1620315009992773633?t=MOypKT_9blB8OPReSNkXmg&s=19

Understood. If they come in illegally on the boats then they should not be allowed to claim asylum. And yes I know we then have a problem because France won't let us send them back across the channel.

Yes, but there are very few ways to claim asylum without entering the country first. If you ban illegal migrants from gaining asylum you effectively end asylum.

I think this is where the solution will end.

The only grounds for claiming asylum "on shore" will be that you were fleeing for your life and you had no alternative or choice before getting here, and you'd have to evidence that.

Otherwise, 48-72 hours detention and next plane back.

Next plane back to where?

Say I have fled a middle eastern country in fear of my life. I somehow make it to Britain, maybe on a boat.

I am not confident I can evidence how my life is at risk back home sufficiently to qualify for asylum (how am I going to do that?) You ask me where I come from - I'm not saying.

Where are you going to fly me to?

TimS said:

At my table in Nyhavn I ended up in conversation with an elderly Danish couple out for a meal. Often happens when eating alone.

She told me she used to travel to London a lot but “not since Brexit”, and then asked me how things were there “with all the protests in the health service and the strikes”. So it appears British domestic stuff is being piped into Nordic living rooms this winter.

I explained that, rather as with the gilet jaunes in France, what looks like violent revolution on the TV tends not to feel that way when you live there, and she should pluck up the courage to visit London again.

It was like persuading someone in the 1990s to give Beirut another look.

Foxy said:

turbotubbs said:

Foxy said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Pensioners get a holiday every week and one of the best payrises in the nation.

Although it would be hard to argue that the state pension allows a champagne lifestyle. An increase of 10% on not a lot, is a bit more, but still not a lot.

The country spends £110 billion on the state pension, so the rise costs £11 billion, and adds to inflationary pressures. A lower rise and an equal one for public sector workers would have been better.

MikeL said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

The issue there is more likely prejudice against employing the over 50s.
The incentives ought to be for the employers, not the prematurely retired.

I would like to see how they got the 1.2 million figure,

by my reckoning its far too high
using even today figures

Education 11 years time 7k (most born in 56 will have not gone to uni or even a levels) = 77k

Child benefit for 2 kids 35 * 52 * 18 = 32k

Pension and lets be generous and say they live till 95 hence 30 years at 10k = 300k

health care = xk
unemployment = yk

total figure then is 77 + 32 + 300 + x + y = 399 + x +y

x+y therefore average 800k per person. Sorry frankly that guy is talking bollocks

You've missed out tax credits.

The vast majority of people with children get tax credits and the amounts are far greater than child benefit.

Luckyguy1983 said:

TimS said:

If Albanians are a big chunk of the people arriving on boats then a solution presents itself: open up tens of thousands of working visas for Albanian nationals for public sector jobs where there are acute shortages, in exchange for unfettered access to housing, health and social care to retired Brits who’d like to live out their final days in sunny unspoilt Mediterranean Albania.

Dear Lord, do you really think they're coming here because they have a burning desire to be hospital porters in Hemel Hempstead? If so, can you explain why they're not just coming on a plane from Tirana for £23?

TimS said:

Mortimer said:

Nigelb said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

That’s just echoing the government bullshit line.
How far below inflation would you say the public sector should be settling - how big of a pay reduction ?

Somewhere around the same level as private sector. 5-6% avg rise?

The answer in a capitalist society is surely whatever the market decides, based on supply vs demand.

Casino_Royale said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Casino_Royale said:

Leon said:

Gardenwalker said:

Scott_xP said:

@SunPolitics: Dominic Raab could QUIT ahead of damning bullying probe against him https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/politics/21243294/dominic-raab-could-quit-damning-probe/

Hope so.

If Rishi does want to scrape the least bad loss (I think a win is now out of the question), he needs to get rid of Raab and Braverman like he (under duress) got rid of Zahawi and Williamson.

Why Braverman? I know you hate her because she’s a right wing HS, but electorally she is on the button. She has told the Tories that if they don’t stop the boats they are FUCKED. And she is damn right

I reckon the Tories are doomed whatever they do, but if they stop the boats they can prevent a bad defeat becoming an apocalyptic rout

The Tories almost certainly can't stop the boats.

I suspect the only way under our current legal paradigm, and the tangled web of laws, charters and obligations we've got internationally, to stop the boats is to allow everyone over here a ride who wants them so they don't need to launch a boat- and hence they end.

Of course, the net result would be a massive increase in immigration.

The only alternative to actually "stop the boats" - which would mean stopping the boats and the migration - would be to reopen decades of international law and UN charters and the legal industries that surround them to requalify refugee and asylum definitions, which would probably take years, and then to forcefully police it. Which we can't do alone.

You really have no idea do you? They have already got 'a ride' if they want one - return flights to Albania are £23 at the moment.

https://www.skyscanner.net/flights-to/al/cheap-flights-to-albania.html

Why would anyone pay hundreds to a sleazy trafficker to come over on a leaky dinghy? Because they don't want to go through passport control and show up on a database is why.

The way to actually stop the boats is to end the pull factors - sort out benefit entitlements, process claims at a speed of higher than a few a week, declare Albania a safe country and send people straight back, amend May's dreadful modern slavery law which is providing a bullet-proof self-fulfilling asylum claim justification - essentially a GRC for asylum claimants. These aren't hard things to do, and they are already the case in other countries including full EU members.

I do like you n all but would you stop being so PATHETIC please, what sort of Conservative are you?

Well, aside from the fact I agree with much of that, I'm one who can think for himself. All the things you list are necessary but still wouldn't be sufficient with the volumes of people who are trying it now- from all sorts of countries, not just Albania - and the problem is only going to get worse as geopolitical instability increases due to climate change and economic turmoil. I presume what triggered you there is the 'international agreement' bit - but the solution to this cannot just be domestic alone as there's a whole web of this stuff that pulls people into the West that's decades out of date and doesn't reflect the world as it is today.

You really do seem to be a dogmatic sort who thinks being a Conservative is calling out offences against Juche with capital letters whenever you think the "vibe" is a bit off what you understand to be doctrine.

It's not impressive and it's certainly not convincing; it's a road to nowhere, except defeat.

Andy_JS said:

TimS said:

At my table in Nyhavn I ended up in conversation with an elderly Danish couple out for a meal. Often happens when eating alone.

She told me she used to travel to London a lot but “not since Brexit”, and then asked me how things were there “with all the protests in the health service and the strikes”. So it appears British domestic stuff is being piped into Nordic living rooms this winter.

I explained that, rather as with the gilet jaunes in France, what looks like violent revolution on the TV tends not to feel that way when you live there, and she should pluck up the courage to visit London again.

It was like persuading someone in the 1990s to give Beirut another look.

Last time I was in London the place was full of American tourists.

BartholomewRoberts said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

That’s just echoing the government bullshit line.
How far below inflation would you say the public sector should be settling - how big of a pay reduction ?

What are you going to cut or who are you going to tax more to pay for it. Ah of course the people getting 5% payrises will get the brunt.

Easy.

Cut the triple lock to start with, so that everyone's pay goes up the same amount and those who aren't working don't see bigger pay rises than those who are.

Increase taxes on those who aren't paying the full rate of income tax, by merging income tax, NI etc together so people can no longer dodge NI and we all pay the same rate regardless of how we earn our income.

Do you agree with these two concepts? That everyone earning the same income should pay the same tax rate, and that those who don't work shouldn't be getting more than those who do?

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

Sunak needed to display the brutality of power that Johnson did, and cull all the cabinet he didn't like, shortly to be followed by culling the backbenchers who oppose him.

He didn't, so his cabinet is a mixed bag of loonies, time servers owed favours and incompetents.

Unlike in 2019, it isn't 20 odd people who disagree with him.

C. 100 Tory backbenchers probably think the state is too big (the blue wall)

C. 75 Tory backbenchers think the state is too small (the levelling uppers)

C. 25 Tory backbenchers won't be continuing past the next GE

There is too high a risk of being ousted by either side. Sunak seems to think by becoming a do nothing uncontroversial govt he might make it through. Johnson's political nous was to realise that the 100 blue wallers could be bought off in one way, and the 75 levelling uppers in another, cancelling each other out. If he hadn't have sacked Cummings I think he'd still be bestriding British politics, as Tim Shipman said, 'like a Giant toad'....

Hi Mortimer, good to see you posting.

Yesterday you said: "Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU."

I was genuinely interested in how and why that is since as far as I can see every other business is seeing Brexit as neutral or negative.

Hi Ben,

Here are a few examples:

1) When we were in the EU, I had more European dealers competing with me to buy stock in the UK. That has largely stopped now, or rather, has diminished. So my margins on some products have increased whilst my retail prices have remained the same.

2) The EU regulation of antiques (including books) coming into the EU customs union has drastically increased, apparently to reduce crime (smuggling) and terrorism, even when the law enforcement agencies (I think it was Interpol) were relatively hazy about the impact this would have. So I don't have to worry about import certificates if, say, I buy something from the US or Australia

3) The EU cross border VAT rate changes would have been a sodding nightmare for booksellers - as in the UK books are zero rated but not in pretty much every other EU nation. So some rather convoluted accounting for goods sold to end users in different EU countries.

I recognise I'm in a sweet spot both business wise (selling largely english language books), scale wise (I'm mid-sized for my industry), and industry wise (we're a niche product), but honestly, being out is a huge huge boon for me.

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

The issue there is more likely prejudice against employing the over 50s.
The incentives ought to be for the employers, not the prematurely retired.

I would like to see how they got the 1.2 million figure,

by my reckoning its far too high
using even today figures

Education 11 years time 7k (most born in 56 will have not gone to uni or even a levels) = 77k

Child benefit for 2 kids 35 * 52 * 18 = 32k

Pension and lets be generous and say they live till 95 hence 30 years at 10k = 300k

health care = xk
unemployment = yk

total figure then is 77 + 32 + 300 + x + y = 399 + x +y

x+y therefore average 800k per person. Sorry frankly that guy is talking bollocks

Pagan2 said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

That’s just echoing the government bullshit line.
How far below inflation would you say the public sector should be settling - how big of a pay reduction ?

What are you going to cut or who are you going to tax more to pay for it. Ah of course the people getting 5% payrises will get the brunt.

Easy.

Cut the triple lock to start with, so that everyone's pay goes up the same amount and those who aren't working don't see bigger pay rises than those who are.

Increase taxes on those who aren't paying the full rate of income tax, by merging income tax, NI etc together so people can no longer dodge NI and we all pay the same rate regardless of how we earn our income.

Do you agree with these two concepts? That everyone earning the same income should pay the same tax rate, and that those who don't work shouldn't be getting more than those who do?

I am fine with the latter, in fact I suggested state pension clawback once on here at a rate of 1£ for every 5£ of private pension over 5k as well as NI.

I don't agree however with pensioners not getting the full col rise because most aren't in a position to increase their income where as most working age people are either via retraining or taking on extra work.

Benpointer said:

Pagan2 said:

Nigelb said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

The issue there is more likely prejudice against employing the over 50s.
The incentives ought to be for the employers, not the prematurely retired.

I would like to see how they got the 1.2 million figure,

by my reckoning its far too high
using even today figures

Education 11 years time 7k (most born in 56 will have not gone to uni or even a levels) = 77k

Child benefit for 2 kids 35 * 52 * 18 = 32k

Pension and lets be generous and say they live till 95 hence 30 years at 10k = 300k

health care = xk
unemployment = yk

total figure then is 77 + 32 + 300 + x + y = 399 + x +y

x+y therefore average 800k per person. Sorry frankly that guy is talking bollocks

Interesting analysis.

OTOH the £940k tax figure seems quite high. It's £18.8k tax per year for 50 years. I know there's VAT, and Council Tax but a person on the median UK salary of £33,2800 pa only pays £6.8k pa in Income Tax and NI.

RochdalePioneers said:

dixiedean said:

ydoethur said:

dixiedean said:

Scruffy man with his hands permanently thrust in someone else's pockets.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/feb/01/watchdog-examines-220000-public-funding-for-boris-johnson-partygate-defence

I hope you had a good strike day. Accomplish anything?

A lot of sleep.
I am not a member of the striking Union so technically wasn't. The school was closed but they wanted everyone in, including supply, for somewhat mysterious reasons.
I told them I needed a "personal mental health day" (I really did, the past week has been brutal with assaults on pretty much all my colleagues), and would rather take it today than when the kids were in.
I thought I was doing them a favour since they could avoid paying me.
Instead they seemed pissed off.
I suspect they had some busywork motivation bollocks planned.

Wifey also gets called into school when the teachers are on strike. On Monday she also pulled a personal day - I left for that London at 4am that morning and whilst our kids are old enough to be left, they're not old enough to be left home alone all day.

Like you she suffers from kids in her school who seemingly are allowed to be violent and destructive with few consequences.

dixiedean said:

Casino_Royale said:

TimS said:

I just spent a few minutes reading some of the last thread (not realising I wasn’t on the last page) before noticing there was a new one.

The free flowing meanders of an afternoon of PB are fascinating. Page 2 was full of fierce and tenacious trans related debate (without, as someone commented, anyone actually trans on the forum, something I think is badly missed because it makes the debates very hypothetical).

Page 6 was best pubs. I don’t have a favourite. Used to, should do now (I’d love if to be the Duck in Pett Bottom near the vineyard but it’s not) but don’t.

Now we’re on to polls. Last night I was - rightly - being derided for an overly precious reaction to being interrogated at Copenhagen passport control. Tonight I’m at peace (ish) with Brexit as I tuck into a bit of seafood at an extremely touristy spot in Nyhavn.

I find it fascinating (not the subject, the process) of how people can endlessly debate "trans" without the discussion ever going anywhere and it being about 84th on anyone's list of the most important issues facing the country.

I presume because it's about values and identity and so it never ends.

By contrast I find it beyond tedious.
It's the same posters repeating the same points endlessly across each other, on almost every thread.
Marking all posts with a large T so that we can


swiftly ignore is a jolly good idea.

Pagan2 said:

TimS said:

Mortimer said:

Nigelb said:

Mortimer said:

dixiedean said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

From that article

As Duncan Robinson recently noted in the Economist:

“On average someone born in 1956 will pay about £940,000 in tax throughout their life. But they are forecast to receive state benefits amounting to about £1.2m, or £291,000 net. Someone born in 1996 will enjoy less than half of that figure: a fresh-faced 27-year-old today will receive barely more than someone born in 1931, about a decade before the term ‘welfare state’ was first popularised.”

And yet despite this the boomer sense of entitlement remains undimmed, as we can see in the current debate about how to reduce the number of older people dropping out of the labour market. Despite its obvious absurdity the idea of giving people in their 50s and 60s income tax breaks in order to continue working is being heavily promoted in the Tory friendly press; the Telegraph, Mail and Express now being essentially Union newsletters for pensioners.

In April we will see the Pensioners get 10.1%, while the workers get stuffed again. No wonder they strike.

Was berated by an angry pensioner today. Holiday every six weeks and I want a pay rise.
Shortly after a moan about rising prices.

Internally consistent I suppose. Pay rises for public sector workers will almost certainty sustain price inflation.

That’s just echoing the government bullshit line.
How far below inflation would you say the public sector should be settling - how big of a pay reduction ?

Somewhere around the same level as private sector. 5-6% avg rise?

The answer in a capitalist society is surely whatever the market decides, based on supply vs demand.

The public sector is not part of the capitalist society though if the market decides the job pays more than a company can afford the company goes bust or learns to manage with fewer workers by introducing productivity improvements.

The public sector just dips it's hands deeper in our pockets

HYUFD said:

Gardenwalker said:

mwadams said:

I think that what frustrates me about the Tory approach to every one of these issues is that they have *no policy* to address *any* issues. HUYFD is a great touchstone for this: every concern is met by a response that it isn't actually a problem and everything will be fine, on the basis that no single thing affects more than 50% of people (and those it does affect are unlikely to vote Tory anyway).

That's no way to govern. And totally unlike the Tory party I once supported.

And as noted above, completely unlike Thatcher.

Who I remain a great fan of, even as I understand that many of her reforms didn’t succeed on her own terms.

Thatcher was more a classical Liberal than traditional patrician Tory, even if obviously not a statist Socialist either

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

Sunak needed to display the brutality of power that Johnson did, and cull all the cabinet he didn't like, shortly to be followed by culling the backbenchers who oppose him.

He didn't, so his cabinet is a mixed bag of loonies, time servers owed favours and incompetents.

Unlike in 2019, it isn't 20 odd people who disagree with him.

C. 100 Tory backbenchers probably think the state is too big (the blue wall)

C. 75 Tory backbenchers think the state is too small (the levelling uppers)

C. 25 Tory backbenchers won't be continuing past the next GE

There is too high a risk of being ousted by either side. Sunak seems to think by becoming a do nothing uncontroversial govt he might make it through. Johnson's political nous was to realise that the 100 blue wallers could be bought off in one way, and the 75 levelling uppers in another, cancelling each other out. If he hadn't have sacked Cummings I think he'd still be bestriding British politics, as Tim Shipman said, 'like a Giant toad'....

Hi Mortimer, good to see you posting.

Yesterday you said: "Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU."

I was genuinely interested in how and why that is since as far as I can see every other business is seeing Brexit as neutral or negative.

Hi Ben,

Here are a few examples:

1) When we were in the EU, I had more European dealers competing with me to buy stock in the UK. That has largely stopped now, or rather, has diminished. So my margins on some products have increased whilst my retail prices have remained the same.

2) The EU regulation of antiques (including books) coming into the EU customs union has drastically increased, apparently to reduce crime (smuggling) and terrorism, even when the law enforcement agencies (I think it was Interpol) were relatively hazy about the impact this would have. So I don't have to worry about import certificates if, say, I buy something from the US or Australia

3) The EU cross border VAT rate changes would have been a sodding nightmare for booksellers - as in the UK books are zero rated but not in pretty much every other EU nation. So some rather convoluted accounting for goods sold to end users in different EU countries.

I recognise I'm in a sweet spot both business wise (selling largely english language books), scale wise (I'm mid-sized for my industry), and industry wise (we're a niche product), but honestly, being out is a huge huge boon for me.

Mortimer said:

Benpointer said:

Mortimer said:

Foxy said:

Gardenwalker said:

Luckyguy1983 said:

Gardenwalker said:

Sunak of course had a golden opportunity to throw Braverman to the wolves in the first week or so of his premiership.

He flunked it, and possibly, with that, flunked his chances in 24.

Not sure how much opportunity there really was. He was never in a very strong position.

A leader’s mana is usually highest when they first take power.

Sunak obviously did a deal with Braverman, and that got him over the line. However she managed to fuck things up immediately and he passed over the opportunity to take advantage.

Such timidity says everything about his chances of winning the next election.

Sunak needed to display the brutality of power that Johnson did, and cull all the cabinet he didn't like, shortly to be followed by culling the backbenchers who oppose him.

He didn't, so his cabinet is a mixed bag of loonies, time servers owed favours and incompetents.

Unlike in 2019, it isn't 20 odd people who disagree with him.

C. 100 Tory backbenchers probably think the state is too big (the blue wall)

C. 75 Tory backbenchers think the state is too small (the levelling uppers)

C. 25 Tory backbenchers won't be continuing past the next GE

There is too high a risk of being ousted by either side. Sunak seems to think by becoming a do nothing uncontroversial govt he might make it through. Johnson's political nous was to realise that the 100 blue wallers could be bought off in one way, and the 75 levelling uppers in another, cancelling each other out. If he hadn't have sacked Cummings I think he'd still be bestriding British politics, as Tim Shipman said, 'like a Giant toad'....

Hi Mortimer, good to see you posting.

Yesterday you said: "Brexit makes my business life inordinately easier than it would be if we were still in the EU."

I was genuinely interested in how and why that is since as far as I can see every other business is seeing Brexit as neutral or negative.

Hi Ben,

Here are a few examples:

1) When we were in the EU, I had more European dealers competing with me to buy stock in the UK. That has largely stopped now, or rather, has diminished. So my margins on some products have increased whilst my retail prices have remained the same.

2) The EU regulation of antiques (including books) coming into the EU customs union has drastically increased, apparently to reduce crime (smuggling) and terrorism, even when the law enforcement agencies (I think it was Interpol) were relatively hazy about the impact this would have. So I don't have to worry about import certificates if, say, I buy something from the US or Australia

3) The EU cross border VAT rate changes would have been a sodding nightmare for booksellers - as in the UK books are zero rated but not in pretty much every other EU nation. So some rather convoluted accounting for goods sold to end users in different EU countries.

I recognise I'm in a sweet spot both business wise (selling largely english language books), scale wise (I'm mid-sized for my industry), and industry wise (we're a niche product), but honestly, being out is a huge huge boon for me.