This government really does look after oppressed minorities – politicalbetting.com
It’s Rishi Sunak’s 1st birthday as PM.How does he choose to celebrate? By pushing ahead with Liz Truss’ plan to axe the cap on bankers’ bonuses. The cost of living and mortgages are at the front of people’s minds. Yet he thinks this is a priority? https://t.co/y4UrwvMNOo
Comments
-
We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.0
-
How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.
It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.0 -
VAT on food and kids’ clothes? Possibly the most regressive tax ever, after the TV licence.DecrepiterJohnL said:How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.
It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.2 -
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
0 -
Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.0 -
You know TSE, your abandonment of subtlety seems to have had the opposite effect. Your last paragraph was almost subtle in places.0
-
The Trump verdict on his new Speaker.
https://twitter.com/BidenHQ/status/17173260340669726820 -
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
wibble2 -
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.0 -
Prepare to be disappointedHeathener said:
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.2 -
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.1 -
No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.Alanbrooke said:
Prepare to be disappointedHeathener said:
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.1 -
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.3 -
For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.Alanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
wibble1 -
The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.Alanbrooke said:
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.
Why? FPTP.3 -
Lol he'll kick the can down the road. independent enquiry etc.Heathener said:
No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.Alanbrooke said:
Prepare to be disappointedHeathener said:
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
But I cant see a Londoncentric professional wishing to upset the apple cart, he needs the banks on board and will quietly let the issue drop.2 -
North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
2 -
No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.TimS said:
The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.Alanbrooke said:
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.
Why? FPTP.
Where's Respect these days ?0 -
Really ? Given nobody has published a manifesto yet Id still say the subject is up for discussion. So if Starmer wants to go to town on this he can make it a policy.Nigelb said:
For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.Alanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
wibble0 -
What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?Alanbrooke said:
No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.TimS said:
The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.Alanbrooke said:
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.
Why? FPTP.
Where's Respect these days ?
The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.1 -
It’ll be a Reeves decision. Ex-city so whatever she decides she’ll be able to put some sort of macro econ gloss on it.Alanbrooke said:
Really ? Given nobody has published a manifesto yet Id still say the subject is up for discussion. So if Starmer wants to go to town on this he can make it a policy.Nigelb said:
For the purposes of the next election, that's rather irrelevant.Alanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
wibble
I’m inclined to agree with you they’ll quietly let the issue drop.1 -
Yes. Ill give you the Greens I had been focusing more on the Labour Left. It will be interesting to see if they draw off support in the current Gaza uproar.TimS said:
What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?Alanbrooke said:
No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.TimS said:
The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.Alanbrooke said:
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.
Why? FPTP.
Where's Respect these days ?
The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.1 -
It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.4
-
You mean, like it did in 2007-8?Casino_Royale said:It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.
1 -
I think any impact would be marginal but it probably does help to allow for more variable cost base. Banks don’t make super profits anymore anyway. That’s the PE and hedge funds industry, where payment is uncapped because it’s treated as capital gains.Casino_Royale said:It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.
But it’s politically toxic for Sunak to abolish the cap. Whereas Reeves deciding not to reintroduce it wouldn’t be so problematic.3 -
It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.2
-
The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds4 -
Possibly. On the other hand, like all lawyers, Starmer's totally spineless, completely ignorant of economics and utterly without principle. He can't see a bandwagon without trying to jump on it, and is addicted to public sector managerial solutions, so I can see him trying to get the cap back in.Alanbrooke said:
Lol he'll kick the can down the road. independent enquiry etc.Heathener said:
No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.Alanbrooke said:
Prepare to be disappointedHeathener said:
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
But I cant see a Londoncentric professional wishing to upset the apple cart, he needs the banks on board and will quietly let the issue drop.
That government is just as incompetent in telling people what they should earn as it is in everything else when they interfere in the market isn't something he can grasp. Nor, in fairness, do 63% of the country, apparently.0 -
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon1 -
I can’t believe at least 37% of Britons are unable to identify black British heroes like Quintus Lollius Urbicus from the 3rd Century AD
Do we even have an education system??6 -
Is VAT on meat part of the plan?DecrepiterJohnL said:How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.
It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.1 -
I don't see why the government should interfere in how any citizen is paid, provided it is above the minimum wage, and appropriately taxed.6
-
Striking stat:
Covid-19 meant that death rates in 2020 were much higher than recent years. In England & Wales they increased by 13% compared to 2019.
But even in 2020, death rates for England & Wales were lower than they have EVER been in Scotland!
https://x.com/actuarybyday/status/1716805711903207528?3 -
To be fair, Sunak won't be in a position to help "his" people for very much longer, so it's understandable that he should want to get on with it.3
-
... or a Bin Tax....Foxy said:
Is VAT on meat part of the plan?DecrepiterJohnL said:How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handouts
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
The Telegraph helpfully and not in a scary way speculates that Labour will extend VAT, based on nothing more than a VAT expansion to "all or almost all" transactions being suggested by an OBR consultant.
It also has a voodoo poll showing IHT as the most unfair tax.0 -
Labour right now is simply looking for sticks with which to beat the Tories. That the Tories are offering them up voluntarily just makes their task easier.Heathener said:
No I don't think you're right about this. I am sure there will be plenty to disappoint people in the new Labour gov't, although that won't include me as I have very little expectation except a general improvement in how gov't runs and in social changes - on which I fear you are the one who will be most disappointed judging by your recent caustic threads.Alanbrooke said:
Prepare to be disappointedHeathener said:
YesAlanbrooke said:
They may well do, but can you see Starmer reversing it ?Heathener said:Staggering decision by Sunak.
Voters will have their vengeance.
On bankers bonuses? Yes he will reverse it. Rachel Reeves has already made quite clear that she's not going to tolerate abuse from the top.
What they actually do about any of this when they come to power, is another matter entirely. If there’s no political or financial upside for the government at the time, my money is on nothing.1 -
The present government doles out state handouts for nearly everything, including buses, electricity bills, transport to work, replacing your boiler, etc. However it funds it by debt rather than taxation.DecrepiterJohnL said:How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handout
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
...
At the risk of being contrarian, maybe a Labour govt willing to tax-and-spend would legitimately be better. It would certainly be better than debt-and-spend.
3 -
I can't believe Roman Britain stopped at Hadrian's Wall.Leon said:I can’t believe at least 37% of Britons are unable to identify black British heroes like Quintus Lollius Urbicus from the 3rd Century AD
Do we even have an education system??0 -
Did you get the Sicilian travel advice you were asking for last night?Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
Inland is good, except the bits strewn with miles of uncollected roadside rubbish. The Roman villa of Casale was my favourite, and the Etna vineyards.0 -
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds2 -
No I missed that. Grazie!TimS said:
Did you get the Sicilian travel advice you were asking for last night?Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
Inland is good, except the bits strewn with miles of uncollected roadside rubbish. The Roman villa of Casale was my favourite, and the Etna vineyards.
It does seem like the slopes of Etna are worth a look
0 -
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.4 -
Which is of course why New Labour found the then recently invented Tory PFI so insanely attractive. Never mind that the sudden rush of new funding is often spent unwisely or carelessly; the burden of paying it back is safely shunted off into the distant future.viewcode said:
The present government doles out state handouts for nearly everything, including buses, electricity bills, transport to work, replacing your boiler, etc. However it funds it by debt rather than taxation.DecrepiterJohnL said:How a VAT expansion under Labour could take the welfare state to the next level
Applying the tax to ‘all or almost all’ transactions could help fund state handout
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/tax/labour-vat-tax-expansion-fund-welfare-state/ (£££)
...
At the risk of being contrarian, maybe a Labour govt willing to tax-and-spend would legitimately be better. It would certainly be better than debt-and-spend.2 -
Good morning, everyone.
I'd never heard of Quintus Lollius Urbicus.
Also, Wikipedia suggests he was a Numidian Berber, and therefore not black. The assumption African = black is the sort of Afro-centric ignorance that leads some to think Cleopatra was black.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quintus_Lollius_Urbicus6 -
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon4 -
Never too early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon0 -
Well, I'm certainly glad you cottoned on to where I am.TimS said:
Never to early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon0 -
If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't1 -
OT for PBers with shiny new PCs on their Christmas list after their laptops mysteriously slowed down
Windows 11 Pro's On-By-Default Encryption Slows SSDs Up to 45%
https://www.tomshardware.com/news/windows-software-bitlocker-slows-performance
hat-tip TechLinked https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a-x2rTNukao1 -
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...1 -
What’s the weather been like? I am thinking of taking the dog to Crete in October 2026. Or maybe 2025.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon
0 -
It got as far as the Antonine wall for a bit.DecrepiterJohnL said:
I can't believe Roman Britain stopped at Hadrian's Wall.Leon said:I can’t believe at least 37% of Britons are unable to identify black British heroes like Quintus Lollius Urbicus from the 3rd Century AD
Do we even have an education system??
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonine_Wall2 -
This is actually a positive from the government - they're (at least until they U-turn pathetically) doing something good for the country as a whole, rather than just announcing nonsense that will never happen, or chasing after whatever the latest headline or focus group says.
Given that they still have a large majority, and no hope of remaining in power beyond a year it would be nice to think they could do more of this sort of thing, but I'm sure normal service will be resumed soon.2 -
I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.5 -
I’d be amazed if most British people could name *anybody* from the 3rd century.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The number of people who get remembered - outside the ranks of historians - is tiny. If you were to ask the man in the street to name one Roman, the reply would almost certainly be “Julius Caesar.”
And, I’m sure it would break the author’s heart to learn that Mary Seacole was a Tory and a supporter of the British Empire.6 -
I went there at the start of the month. Crete is beautiful.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon1 -
Obviously these voters have places to go - the Greens or Gallowayesque mobs. And you can see a little local difficulty. But I tend to think the number of people prepared to quit and/or start-up Labour's civil war again over its stance on something it can do nothing about - and where Starmer's stance is identical to Bernie Sanders (!), will be limited to the rump who have never forgiven Starmer for defenestrating Corbyn over antisemitism, and a small number for whom unequivocal, uncaveated support for Palestine is a primary animating issue - neither of whom can set the policy of a party which has to act for the country.Alanbrooke said:
Yes. Ill give you the Greens I had been focusing more on the Labour Left. It will be interesting to see if they draw off support in the current Gaza uproar.TimS said:
What’s this variety of parties? Conservative and Refuk. Plus a bunch of fascist-adjacent micro-parties. Who else?Alanbrooke said:
No the right have a variety of parties. The left herd sheep the right herd cats.TimS said:
The same is true of the right. Both left and right voters have the luxury of huffing and puffing off to greens or Refuk when the stakes are low. Then at general elections they come meekly back home.Alanbrooke said:
True. The left huff and puff but basically do nothing - as says Mandelson they have nowhere else to go. No courage no convictions.Heathener said:
It's a truism of British politics that foreign policy neither wins nor loses elections. The sole exception in my lifetime was the Falklands War.MJW said:
FPT. Maybe - but I doubt it. Over the past few years whenever there's been a Labour blow up, there's been a flurry of anger, talk of splits and trouble. Lots of social media noise - and then slowly, quietly, everything calms down and Starmer's position wins the day. Now, this could be much bigger - co-religionist feelings affect it. As does the seriousness of events in Gaza. But there's a big difference between those who might be frustrated with Starmer and those for whom it will be a resigning matter of public dissent. And I'm not sure any more than the usual suspects will want to publicly argue that Labour should be adopting the same position as those who do seem willing to ignore the atrocities of Hamas and excuse some appalling behaviour at home, rather than the general policies of the US and EU in lobbying for a stronger humanitarian response while acknowledging Hamas have to go after what happened on 7th October. I tend to think cooler heads will prevail.Wulfrun_Phil said:
You are utterly misreading the situation. This time it's very far from just "a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances".MJW said:
He and Labour will be fine - it didn't in the Blair years, when he did much more to create legitimate anger. Starmer is plodding thoroughly down the middle, which obviously infuriates a rump in the party who believe Labour should exist to air their grievances, but usually ends up in the most reasonable place - here accepting Israel's right to get rid of Hamas, while trying to do everything to mitigate harm to civilians and following US and EU allies' policy (who actually have influence - unlike a Labour opposition). Those complaining will overplay their hand, as they always do. Probably when march for a third consecutive weekend while completely failing to acknowledge the pain caused on 7 October.carnforth said:
I don't think this will lead to a Labour split big enough to affect the next election. But anything's possible.nico679 said:Its strange how one line in an interview can snowball into causing so many problems for the Labour leadership and that’s set to get worse as the news out of Gaza soon will be of incubators being shut down and the vast majority of the population having no food or water.
This will blow over for Starmer. He may lose a few Muslim votes but I doubt it's going to affect things very much.
Numerous right of centre posters here have huffed and puffed loudly and vehemently over May, then Johnson, then Truss, and now Sunak. But come next year I’m sure most of them will put a cross in the Tory box.
Why? FPTP.
Where's Respect these days ?
The left have Labour and the Greens. And a bunch of fruitcake marginalia. It’s precisely symmetrical except in Scotland and Wales where they also have the SNP and Plaid.
Another point is the polls. If Starmer were struggling or neck and neck and with a less-than-great chance of winning the next election, then it genuinely might be worth a disgruntled big-name frontbencher's while to resign to win the support of the left in a likely leadership election. I take it back if I'm wrong, but there's no cosplay Cook figure (who did so for honourable reasons) - nor is this Iraq. Even if he loses a junior minister or two - those rarely make much of a dent in the grand scheme of things.1 -
Does Kwarteng still count? Britain's shortest period as Chancellor?IanB2 said:
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds1 -
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
0 -
A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.
The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.
https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f
3 -
scooped by Nigelb1
-
He's lucky to be up against Starmer. Anyone looking at the oft repeated 'Go Bomb 'em Israel-and when you've finished bomb 'em some more' (or words to that effect) and then watching him answer the follow-up 'Did you really mean what you wanted Israel to wipe Gaza off the map' (or words to that effect)?
'No no no...I never said that'.
'But we have it on film'
'No no no.....you don't'
I'm sorry Heathener. Starmer is very capable of screwing this up. He's everything his enemies accuse him of being. He's more William Hague than Tony Blair. He might ride this one out but there's only so long he can keep looking like a Sunak mini -me before voters start wondering whether they're better with the real thing.2 -
In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.Nigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.3 -
Duplicate deleted0
-
That is funded by higher taxes, not the private sector as bankers bonuses now are (except for private doctors salaries)Foxy said:
I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.1 -
Just another lazy politician getting stuff ghost-written.CarlottaVance said:A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.
The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.
https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f2 -
In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rollsNigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?0 -
Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.IanB2 said:
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.2 -
Same issue of staff retention...HYUFD said:
That is funded by higher taxes, not the private sector as bankers bonuses now are (except for private doctors salaries)Foxy said:
I am very glad to see the government realise the importance of pay in retention of skilled personnel.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
I am sure that a similar approach to the renewed talks with the BMA will be welcomed by the Tory faithful.0 -
The concept of a Sunak mini-me is mind-boggling!Roger said:He's lucky to be up against Starmer. Anyone looking at the oft repeated 'Go Bomb 'em Israel-and when you've finished bomb 'em some more' (or words to that effect) and then watching him answer the follow-up 'Did you really mean what you wanted Israel to wipe Gaza off the map' (or words to that effect)?
'No no no...I never said that'.
'But we have it on film'
'No no no.....you don't'
I'm sorry Heathener. Starmer is very capable of screwing this up. He's everything his enemies accuse him of being. He's more William Hague than Tony Blair. He might ride this one out but there's only so long he can keep looking like a Sunak mini -me before voters start wondering whether they're better with the real thing.2 -
I was glad to see my old teacher Dr Aggrey Burke in the list of 100 great Black Britons. He was probably the most influential of all my clinical teachers, who really opened my eyes to understand the world.Sandpit said:
Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.IanB2 said:
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.
https://www.100greatblackbritons.co.uk/
4 -
If we deleted all those PBers whose contributions consisted solely/mostly quoting from other sources it would be considerably smaller...😀CarlottaVance said:A new book by Rachel Reeves, shadow chancellor, has been found to contain examples of apparent plagiarism, including entire sentences and paragraphs lifted from other sources without acknowledgment.
The book, The Women Who Made Modern Economics, included reproduced material from online blogs, Wikipedia, The Guardian and a report foreword by Labour MP Hilary Benn without acknowledging the sources.
https://www.ft.com/content/e4c190b0-cc4e-4dc4-945b-9f680ce1c67f1 -
Lenny for me, doing Frank Spencer (badly) on New Faces and the soccer player Cyrille Regis RIPSandpit said:
Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.IanB2 said:
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway.1 -
Full of bullshit as usual.,.ydoethur said:
Well, I'm certainly glad you cottoned on to where I am.TimS said:
Never to early for an Ydoethur pun. I’m glad you didn’t say you’re in Cambodia getting ready for a minor tour.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon0 -
The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.
Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.6 -
As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.
Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?
Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?2 -
I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.Chris said:
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.1 -
Regardless of what exactly the author said, this does look like being a pretty effective marketing ploy on behalf of Bloomsbury for the book they have just published. The Guardian report does say Bloomsbury commissioned the survey, but really perhaps they should have put "Advertising Feature" at the top of the article.Chris said:
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
1 -
Israeli tanks and troops cross into Gaza as part of 'tactical raid'
Israel's Army Radio reports that ground forces carried out a "relatively large" operation aimed at attacking Hamas positions in Gaza.
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-latest-israel-sends-tanks-into-gaza-as-troops-complete-ground-incursion-129788000 -
Knossos is a very interesting site, but perhaps the reconstructions aren't entirely helpful. The museum in Heraklion has a splendid collection of finds from the excavations.ydoethur said:
Some of us are in Crete, and getting ready for a minor tour including Knossos.Leon said:
Objection, your HonourTimS said:It’s fun being 3 hours ahead of the UK as I get to see who the early risers are on here. And there are some incredibly early risers.
Some of us are in Sicily and woke up for no reason at 6am and are drinking red wine and eating peppered salami and fully intend to go back to sleep at 9 and then sleep til noon0 -
Off-duty British-Israeli soldier flung back seven Hamas grenades before eighth blew up in his hand
https://news.sky.com/story/off-duty-british-israeli-soldier-flung-back-seven-hamas-grenades-before-eighth-blew-up-in-his-hand-12992802
This is First World War stuff. Posthumous GC incoming?0 -
I don't see how it appeals to all Tory voters - a lot of them will seriously dislike the games bankers have played in the past to maximise their bonuses (while risking the bank as a whole)..RochdalePioneers said:
As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.
Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?
Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?0 -
It appeals to Tory donors, and friends of Tory MPs and media tycoons.eek said:
I don't see how it appeals to all Tory voters - a lot of them will seriously dislike the games bankers have played in the past to maximise their bonuses (while risking the bank as a whole)..RochdalePioneers said:
As you always respond to any event like this I have to assume that it is sincere as opposed to just plain mad / ignorant.HYUFD said:If the city of London is to compete with NYC, Singapore etc at the top level of the financial sector it needed to end the cap on bankers' bonuses. Bonuses also ensure reward based on performance rather than banks having to set aside larger fixed costs for salary.
If you are strongly opposed to big bankers' bonuses and will vote accordingly you will be voting Labour anyway, as the poll figures show while most Labour and to a lesser extent LD voters oppose removing the cap on the bonuses most Conservative voters don't
You lot are 20% behind in the polls. You can't have policies that appeal to the remaining Tory voters and repel any other voter. You need policies which will appeal to people saying they won't vote for you.
Despite the holier-than-thou bluster you are intelligent, so much know this. So is there another angle? A desperate need to shore up the remaiing Tory vote because otherwise it goes elsewhere?
Is the thinking that unless you appall 75% of the electorate with this bonus thing, you might lose another 5% of your remaining chunk to ReFUK? Because otherwise why would you do it? And don't say "for the good of he country" as your only definition of what is good for the country is you lot in government. And this helps remove you from government. So why?2 -
.
So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.HYUFD said:
In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rollsNigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.0 -
We will get a little bit of extra tax each year sure. But lets not pretend it doesn't also increase our potential liabilities in a future bank bailout too.DavidL said:The city of London is one of our key industries and one of the few that is internationally competitive. The restriction on bonuses is a silly idea introduced by the EU at the insistence of those who don’t have such an industry. The really surprising thing is that the government has taken so little to abolish a measure that they always opposed.
Of course it won’t win any votes but if it enhances London as a place for financial services it will help improve our tax base.0 -
Obviously it's difficult to estimate accurately what the black population was historically. I suspect that for London the answer is more than one might think but less than portrayed in Doctor Who. English Heritage quotes an estimate of 10,000 in London around 1800, which would be about 1% of the population. Though Wikipedia also quotes a contemporary estimate of as many as 20,000 in 1764, which would be more like 2.5%.turbotubbs said:
I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.Chris said:
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.0 -
Why would it be either/or?PoodleInASlipstream said:
They could, if they've never been to Greenock before and don't know what they're getting into...BartholomewRoberts said:
Well if millions of homes existed in Greenock people could move from Edinburgh to Greenock.
But seriously, Greenock the surrounding area is a good illustration of one side of the housing shortage. It does not have a housing shortage, it has a people shortage. Nobody wants to move there. The local authority, Inverclyde council, has a 'depopulation strategy' which is, not surprisingly given the lack of resources, an largely ineffective attempt to get people to stop fleeing for greener pastures.
Large swathes of high and medium-density housing in Inverclyde, tower blocks, tenements and the like, have been demolished in recent years because they are lying empty and the housing stock has fallen into disrepair.
Nobody is moving from Edinburgh to Greenock unless they are utterly without options. There are few high quality jobs in the area. The infrastructure is crap. The amenities are sparse and getting more so. It's an area in desperate need of help. The UK government is spending £20m to tart up the town centre, but that's like putting lipstick on someone who's dying.
This is the Clune Park estate in Port Glasgow, a couple of miles up the road from Greenock. Inverclyde council is having to spend millions buying the place and knocking it down because it was such a hole most of the residents got the hell out and it's become a magnet for drug dealers and arsonists.
And the bitter part? Clune Park is little more than a stone's throw from Ferguson's shipyard where the SNP has been busy pouring hundreds of millions into a black hole. That money wouldn't have fixed Inverclyde's problems, but a fraction of it spent wisely might have made Clune Park a decent place to live.
We need to be doing something about places like this before concreting over the countryside to build a zillion new homes in desirable areas.
We have a shortage of millions of homes. All the Greenock's in the country are already included in that data and don't make up the shortage.
Making places like Greenock desirable absolutely can and should be possible, but its not either/or, there still needs to be millions of homes built to cope with the population growth we've already had (and the population growth which is yet to come).0 -
.
To be fair to HY, its rather difficult to argue that the US is a functioning democracy anyway.Nigelb said:.
So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.HYUFD said:
In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rollsNigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.1 -
That is unusual, though - and thanks to the Supreme Court reducing protections against gerrymandering, and moves such as North Carolina's, it is likely to revert to the more regular pattern.Sean_F said:
In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.Nigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.
Here are the last half dozen percentages of national vote and corresponding percentages of seats in the House of Representatives for the GOP.
2022 50.6% 51%
2020 47.2% 48.9%
2018 44.8% 45.7%
2016 49.1% 55.4%
2014 51.2% 56.8%
2012 47.7% 53.7%
2 -
They’re a key *donor* demographic to win back. I suspect the once-groaning Tory campaign war chest is looking a little humbler these days.DecrepiterJohnL said:We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.
1 -
Banker heavy Kensington, Cities of London and Westminster, Chelsea and Fulham and Esher and Walton are also now marginal seatsGhedebrav said:
They’re a key *donor* demographic to win back. I suspect the once-groaning Tory campaign war chest is looking a little humbler these days.DecrepiterJohnL said:We've just read in the last thread how Rishi messed up his spreadsheet and thought Con held Tamworth. Maybe his dodgy spreadsheet identified bankers as the key voting demographic to win back.
1 -
I think the simple truth is that Republicans aren't interested in democracy, they're interested in power. Once you go down that path it's hard to find a way back because your positions drift ever further from the median voter and you have to engage in ever more extreme distortions of the democratic process to win. Making non-competitive seats is especially dangerous as it makes politicians focus on primary voters not the electorate as a whole. The US is moving away from its democratic roots and heading somewhere dangerous.Nigelb said:.
So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.HYUFD said:
In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rollsNigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.
7 -
Perhaps but there are a lot of important decisions that are routinely ducked because they're seen to be "politically toxic".TimS said:
I think any impact would be marginal but it probably does help to allow for more variable cost base. Banks don’t make super profits anymore anyway. That’s the PE and hedge funds industry, where payment is uncapped because it’s treated as capital gains.Casino_Royale said:It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.
But it’s politically toxic for Sunak to abolish the cap. Whereas Reeves deciding not to reintroduce it wouldn’t be so problematic.
If our politicians aren't there to make the argument with the courage to lead, then what is the point of them?7 -
Actually, that’s doing better than us. Although I’m not digging out the figures ATM.Nigelb said:
That is unusual, though - and thanks to the Supreme Court reducing protections against gerrymandering, and moves such as North Carolina's, it is likely to revert to the more regular pattern.Sean_F said:
In overall terms, gerrymandering, while disgraceful, doesn’t really favour either party.Nigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
The House election result, 222 to 213, almost exactly matches the national vote share won by Republicans and Democrats.
Here are the last half dozen percentages of national vote and corresponding percentages of seats in the House of Representatives for the GOP.
2022 50.6% 51%
2020 47.2% 48.9%
2018 44.8% 45.7%
2016 49.1% 55.4%
2014 51.2% 56.8%
2012 47.7% 53.7%
And Good Morning to everybody. Gloomy and drizzly, though!2 -
If we're going historical then Mary Seacole and all those aristocrats off BridgertonTaz said:
Lenny for me, doing Frank Spencer (badly) on New Faces and the soccer player Cyrille Regis RIPSandpit said:
Frank Bruno, John Barnes, Daley Thompson.IanB2 said:
Lenny Henry isn’t the right answer, then?Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
They’re my earliest historical memories of significant black British figures anyway. 1 -
Around half a percent of London's population in 1900 was recorded as being from the colonies. Though they would have been heavily concentrated in dockland areas.turbotubbs said:
I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.Chris said:
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
As noted above, it's much more difficult to estimate the numbers who had been there for several generations.1 -
Few like bankers getting money of course, even if it was earned, but they don't help themselves by seemingly seeing a 'bonus' as something they are required or entitled to have and moaning so loudly about it all the time. Other areas who demand bonuses are given short shrift, yet the financial industry is the only one where it helps everyone?Casino_Royale said:It will be very unpopular but playing devil's advocate here it might also help us to retain and grow our financial services sector, which would increase tax revenue to the exchequer.
0 -
If one's trying to portray reality then yes its odd.turbotubbs said:
I think this is bang on the money, however it runs counter to a developing narrative that there have been loads of black Britons forever, as exposed by modern TV drama, and a recent rash of rather desperate books. The narrative is utter revisionist nonsense of course.Chris said:
Surely the conclusion to be drawn from that is quite different and blindingly obvious. Not that people are ignorant, but that there were so few significant black figures in Britain before the 19th century - which of course does say something about British society then, but doesn't tell us anything at all about British society now.Leon said:The al-Guard’ian is enraged that most British people can’t name any famous historical black Britons. This is an actual quote
“She [the angry author of a book about famous black Britons] would have expected people to name figures such as Quintus Lollius Urbicus, who became governor of Roman Britain; the formerly enslaved Olaudah Equiano, who became
an abolitionist and writer”
Genius
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/oct/26/half-of-britons-cant-name-a-black-british-historical-figure-survey-finds
The author did cite two other figures, who I had heard of. But I doubt I should have heard of Mary Seacole if not for her involvement in the debate on precisely this subject. And the composer Samuel Coleridge-Taylor had barely started his career before the 20th century. Obviously a lot more black Britons achieved prominence in the 20th century.
I have no beef with colourblind casting in drama (though it should go in all directions) but it’s ahistorical to show Victorian London, say, which large numbers of black characters if one is trying to portray reality.
However if one's trying to portray a parallel universe version of Victorian London, like Bridgerton, there's absolutely nothing odd with it at all.
We already know its fiction, not reality. If its fiction, anything can be different.0 -
So even you admit one of the ten is Democrat, if the US makes gerrymandering legal and constitutional as it does the Democrats can't complain if the Republicans are now better at it than them.Nigelb said:.
So your answer is basically no, you can't give such examples, and resort to your usual tactic in such casesof answering a different question that you've asked yourself.HYUFD said:
In the 1960s the Democrats even counted the dead for votes in Illinois around Chicago, the fact is both parties have done it for decades, there is no Federal electoral commission in the US like here that draws boundaries and checks voter rollsNigelb said:
Give me a couple of examples then where 51% of the vote gives them 70% of the seats.HYUFD said:
Nothing to stop Democrats doing the same in their safe states and they often doNigelb said:North Carolina’s new GOP gerrymander could flip four House seats
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/10/25/north-carolina-congressional-map-gop-gerrymander-00123574
...North Carolina’s new map, which was approved Wednesday by the state legislature, is particularly efficient at securing a GOP advantage in a state that’s closely divided for many statewide races — setting off a scramble among Republicans for the opportunity to run in the newly safe seats.
The map packs as many Democratic voters as possible into three blue districts, while distributing Republicans across the remaining districts to make sure they remain largely out of reach for Democrats. The maps were drawn so Republicans would hold a strong majority of the state’s seats even in particularly bad years for the GOP.
The new map will remake the state’s delegation from an even split of seven Democrats and seven Republicans to one that would likely lock in 10 Republicans and three Democrats, with one competitive battleground seat that Democratic Rep. Don Davis currently holds...
Also in which Democratic governed states can seats be redistricted by a bare majority in the state legislature without a power of veto for the governor ?
Out of the ten most gerrymandered states, only one is Democratic.
In the 1950s and 1960s however the Democrats successfully gerrymandered lots of seats, especially in the South. Politics is a ruthless business, if you don't like it don't whinge, get even!0
