Howdy, Stranger!

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

We need to talk about Trump’s age and faculties – politicalbetting.com

24567

Comments

  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,125

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    I'm not sure I buy the argument that strikes can be headed off by higher pay rises.
    Strikes are not an inverae function of pay, they are a function of the expectation of their success in achieving pay increases above whatever the employer has offered. Explicitly statìng that pay increases are there to avert strikes is counterproductive because it telegraphs that the employer is sensitive to that tactic.
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,269
    ydoethur said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    It's the first of many mistakes
    The problem isn't so much finding the money for this pay rise. It's finding the money to pay for the last two pay rises which central government implemented but forgot to fund.

    So she may actually have a case here.

    Of course, how she can raise taxes (or at least, which ones she can raise and by how much) given her manifesto is a more difficult question.
    And the most important question is how to make the productivity increases required to ultimately afford it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe2g3drxj5o Labour to allow the apprenticeship levy to be spent on a broader array of training. This is very welcome news as apprenticeships are bureaucratic spaghettis of red tape.

    So rather than a simple"pay this tax and get it back if you hire apprentices" you now have to apply to yet another state bureaucracy to get their permission to have a training course deemed suitable.

    Tell me you haven't got the first clue how the apprenticeship schemes work without saying it in so many words.

    Basically an awful lot of money isn't getting spent, a lot of firms who could use the money can't access it and a lot of courses that would benefit both the worker and the employer don't qualify..
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,691
    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    They are not 'Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas.'

    They are fucking up the education system by relying for advice and implementation on people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870

    ydoethur said:

    As I said yesterday, they would be mad not to run such a campaign. He is, pun intended, their Trump card.

    He's far too old. She isn't.
    He's clearly mad as a box of frogs. She isn't.
    He's a convicted criminal. She's a lawyer.
    He's a sexual predator. She's an advocate for women's rights.
    He's controlling the courts through dodgy practices. She works to maintain the rule of law.

    If this is election is a referendum on Donald Trump, the Republicans will lose.

    Just as in 2016 it became a referendum on Hilary Clinton and that was terminal for the Dems. But she was a far stronger candidate in 2016 than Trump is now (as was he, indeed).

    I always thought Biden would win anyway for that reason. But with his age and frailty no longer the issue the path for Trump looks difficult, not helped by his choice of running mate.

    Of course, there are still unknowns. For example, who Harris will pick as her running mate. Or how the convention will play out. But at this moment, the Democrats seem to have lanced their boil just at the moment the Republicans were trying to exploit it.

    (Incidentally I note contrary to what the OC 1st Essex Yeomanry was saying last night Buttigieg has endorsed Harris.)

    Harris needs to sex up her profile. I think she will pick Lizzo as her VP.
    I think you'll like this.


    https://x.com/schlagteslinks/status/1815133956578443284
    The dad dancing. About 2/3 in is great!
  • AlanbrookeAlanbrooke Posts: 25,258
    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    You either put it down to they have a steep learning curve and will wise up, or theyre going to be a crap government.

    Too early to say.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,178
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Dems still have a significant Biden problem. He’s too senile to stand again, but he’s just fine and dandy to be leader of the free world until November?

    Every gaffe he makes between now and then will remind voters that the Democrats were prepared, until the last moment, to foist a clearly-demented president on voters for a second term

    He really needs to step down from the job, as well

    Paradoxically, the thought of a doddery old has-been in the White House might harm Trump more than Kamala. (eta I agree Biden should step down.)
    I think this is gonna be a real issue for the Dems as the illogicality sinks in with voters. “OK we admit, he’s in grave cognitive decline, the debate showed the real Biden, he’s gaga. But he’s keeping the job and the nuclear codes til January 2025, he’ll be fine, stop worrying”

    This is unsustainable. It’s THE attack line for the GOP and they will surely use it, relentlessly

    “How can we trust anything you say when you kept an insane man in the White House, a man who is getting worse, daily, and by the way he’s STILL THERE”
    Yes but if the campaign does develop that way, it helps the younger candidate, who is Kamala, and hurts the other old man who is also prone to the occasional brain freeze.

    America is not like Britain where we vote for local MPs wearing coloured rosettes. In America they vote directly for the President, so rather than punish the party, voters can directly select the candidate least like Biden, and that ain't Trump.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,578
    ...
    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    Jeremy Hunt was on Kuenssberg yesterday explaining how he has bequeathed the new government a golden legacy, surely they can thus afford to pay Teachers and Medics fairly.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610
    ydoethur said:

    Apropos of nothing:

    The new Outlook app is utterly shit. What were Microsoft thinking?

    The old Outlook app was internally a pile of something well beyond utter shit. Which is why MS were creating the new version and it will be why they are shifting people to the new version even though it doesn't have feature parity.....
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870

    Two things that Harris can do nothing about but which will cost her millions of votes: she's a woman and she is not white. Even against a convicted felon and serial sex pest who is clearly losing his marbles that puts her at a significant disadvantage.

    The people who vote primarily on that basis are already in the MAGA camp
  • TimSTimS Posts: 12,220

    ydoethur said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    It's the first of many mistakes
    The problem isn't so much finding the money for this pay rise. It's finding the money to pay for the last two pay rises which central government implemented but forgot to fund.

    So she may actually have a case here.

    Of course, how she can raise taxes (or at least, which ones she can raise and by how much) given her manifesto is a more difficult question.
    I think the problem is more signalling to public sector workers that there is money galore.

    Signalling to private sector workers or new graduates that there’s a viable career for them in the public sector is something government is going to need to do if it wants to arrest the decline in service quality.

    I’ve seen it all too often in businesses too: money running out, so you freeze pay and cut investment, and then wonder a few years later why money is still running out.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,578

    ydoethur said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    It's the first of many mistakes
    The problem isn't so much finding the money for this pay rise. It's finding the money to pay for the last two pay rises which central government implemented but forgot to fund.

    So she may actually have a case here.

    Of course, how she can raise taxes (or at least, which ones she can raise and by how much) given her manifesto is a more difficult question.
    And the most important question is how to make the productivity increases required to ultimately afford it.
    An interesting question on a board full of multi-taskers who can give 110% to their employer whilst simultaneously posting on here all day.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870
    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally am I right in thinking that Biden is the first elected President to contest only one Presidential election (i.e. serve a full term but not seek a second) since Rutherford B. Hayes (1876-80)?

    LBJ?

    He was only elected to one term and didn’t contest his second
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited July 22
    MattW said:

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cxe2g3drxj5o Labour to allow the apprenticeship levy to be spent on a broader array of training. This is very welcome news as apprenticeships are bureaucratic spaghettis of red tape.

    Here's hoping some of it is spent on CPD for engineers in Local Highways Authorities so they know how to design and build pavements.
    They do. There all sorts of standards they have to obey to the extent that designs look like theological apologia.

    The problem is that councils are not very good at writing tenders so cowboys win them and whoever wins are in any case not very good at getting their workers to actually do what the design says rather than rush it to (a) spend time on chatting (b) go to the caff (c) knock off early or (d) do it wrongly because that how they always do it and designs from ivory towers are bollocks anyway. And employment laws means the workers can complain harrassment if they get a bollocking.

    Then the council dosent have sufficent people to keep a beady eye on them, cant force them to do it properly (see crap tenders above) and dosent particularly want to as they value their golfing weekend and christmas whisky bottle.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
    He hasn't admitted anything. He can claim the advice was he might start getting a bit fuzzy around 2026. In the meantime we can assume there's some sort of informal regency council in place around pressing the nuke button. None of this is a problem.

    Signed, the guy who has been saying for weeks it was a stone Cold certainty he was going
  • geoffwgeoffw Posts: 8,571
    Nigelb said:

    WTF I just found out Kamala Harris will be 60 by the time the election comes around. Conventionally 60 is old - does she just look really young because she's surrounded by people in their 80s or does she have a really great skincare regime or what?

    Yes.

    Of course it's only a few days since we were saying how old our new PM is.
    He'll have a lot in common with the new President next year. Sixtysomething former prosecutor who got promoted from deputy leader...
    But she doesn't take the knee, unlike him

  • TazTaz Posts: 13,749

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    Pointless having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings.

    Secondly I reckon she easily have several years of playing the Tory blame game and it being effective. It's politics.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,125
    Nigelb said:

    WTF I just found out Kamala Harris will be 60 by the time the election comes around. Conventionally 60 is old - does she just look really young because she's surrounded by people in their 80s or does she have a really great skincare regime or what?

    Yes.

    Of course it's only a few days since we were saying how old our new PM is.
    He'll have a lot in common with the new President next year. Sixtysomething former prosecutor who got promoted from deputy leader...
    People just don't look as old as they used to.
    This popped up on facebook yesterday - this is what 46 year olds looked like in 1975:
    https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=frUqq4Q8gsg
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870
    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally am I right in thinking that Biden is the first elected President to contest only one Presidential election (i.e. serve a full term but not seek a second) since Rutherford B. Hayes (1876-80)?

    LBJ?

    Kinda.
    No, because he became President before the election.

    I'm thinking of somebody elected to the Presidency, serving one full term and declining to contest the next election. Not just losing, a la Bush, Carter, Hoover, Taft, but not running at all.

    That would let out Johnson, Coolidge, Taft, Harrison.

    Of course, that could then lead to discussing what counts as 'an election.' Biden did contest the primaries.
    He was still “an elected president”

    You are redefining the question because @TSE proved you wrong.

    (I did as well, independently, but @TSE came first)
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 53,477
    eek said:

    ydoethur said:

    Apropos of nothing:

    The new Outlook app is utterly shit. What were Microsoft thinking?

    The old Outlook app was internally a pile of something well beyond utter shit. Which is why MS were creating the new version and it will be why they are shifting people to the new version even though it doesn't have feature parity.....
    It’s a long way short of feature parity, and they’re trying to force it on business that aren’t ready. Going back to the old version on a new install now involves hacking the registry.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870
    ydoethur said:

    Back in January I made a series of silly predictions. One was:

    'The Republican candidate will be somebody sane, and the Democratic candidate will be aged below 107.'

    Disconcerting to find that one of them came true.

    But - we still have the crazy candidates for both parts of the Republican ticket.

    Vance isn’t crazy.

    Scary - a proper fascist - yes, but not crazy
  • RandallFlaggRandallFlagg Posts: 1,259
    Owen Jones is a t***er, Part 10,019
    Owen Jones
    @OwenJones84
    ·
    8h
    Joe Biden has armed and facilitated the mass slaughter of innocent people.

    I hope the Green Party co-leader reconsiders this tone deaf statement, retracts it, and agrees to meet with British Palestinians whose relatives have been butchered with US bombs.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,686
    Morning all :)

    It's one of the dubious charms of the American system an incumbent President can be borderline incapacitated or incoherent (Wilson, Eisenhower, Reagan, FDR) but they remain until dead, murdered or essentially forced out under threat of impeachment (Nixon).

    In many other systems, the Head of Government change follows directly from an election (longer or shorter periods) but where the Head of Government is also the Head of State it's more complicated (or seems to be) and we have this "transition" period baked into the American system (ours by contrast is minutes).

    Biden is now a lame duck President - the first since Obama in 2012. That will likely mean a practical if not actual transition of meaningful power to the Senate (bunch of alley cats in a bag) and Congress.

    Harris will presumably be anointed, coronated or just chosen nem con as the Democrat nominee and I think she may be a formidable opponent than the Trump fans suspect. It's going to be the usual irresistible force meeting immovable object as it used to be here but on July 4th 40% voted outside the duopoly but the duopoly still won 533 of the 632 seats (excluding NI and the Speaker).
  • ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    They are not 'Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas.'

    They are fucking up the education system by relying for advice and implementation on people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
    Here is a radical idea. Abolish the DfE. Make all achools wholly independent and decide their own curriulum (but only allowed to be company limited by guarantee or charity to keep the private equity parasites out). Fund them by vouchers and allow reasonable top up. Reduce scope of ofsted inspections to compliance with the law on employing suitably qualified people, child protection etc.

    Teachers are professionals, butt the state out and let them get on with it.

  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 26,269

    ydoethur said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    It's the first of many mistakes
    The problem isn't so much finding the money for this pay rise. It's finding the money to pay for the last two pay rises which central government implemented but forgot to fund.

    So she may actually have a case here.

    Of course, how she can raise taxes (or at least, which ones she can raise and by how much) given her manifesto is a more difficult question.
    And the most important question is how to make the productivity increases required to ultimately afford it.
    An interesting question on a board full of multi-taskers who can give 110% to their employer whilst simultaneously posting on here all day.
    I wonder how many of them are still charging their clients for the time.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,191
    edited July 22

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
    I will believe it when it comes from Rachel Reeves mouth - until then it's just more people trying to apply pressure to her...
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,666
    Cookie said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    I'm not sure I buy the argument that strikes can be headed off by higher pay rises.
    Strikes are not an inverae function of pay, they are a function of the expectation of their success in achieving pay increases above whatever the employer has offered. Explicitly statìng that pay increases are there to avert strikes is counterproductive because it telegraphs that the employer is sensitive to that tactic.
    The issue isn't really about stopping public sector employees going on strike. It's persuading people to become public sector employees at all.

    For those asking who these pay review bodies are, there are details of the teacher one here;

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/school-teachers-review-body
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870
    eek said:

    "Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby probe after experts cast doubt

    David Davis will question the conviction of child-killer nurse Lucy Letby using parliamentary privilege from September"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html

    Yet Parliament is in session for another 2 weeks
    How does parliamentary privilege help here?

    Unless he intends to accuse someone else of a crime
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 16,666

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
    He hasn't admitted anything. He can claim the advice was he might start getting a bit fuzzy around 2026. In the meantime we can assume there's some sort of informal regency council in place around pressing the nuke button. None of this is a problem.

    Signed, the guy who has been saying for weeks it was a stone Cold certainty he was going
    If An Event comes up in the next four months, and it gets fumbled, there's an issue. Otherwise, it's a dying letter that will be fully dead by polling day.

    People looking for an excuse to back Trump will need to do better than that.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 7,870
    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Only if he is seen in public

    3.5 months to the election including 1.5 months of summer

  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,686
    Taz said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    Pointless having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings.

    Secondly I reckon she easily have several years of playing the Tory blame game and it being effective. It's politics.
    One of the problems is what people think of as "public sector workers". Are we thinking central Government, local Government or both?

    The other side is the public sector needs professionally trained and qualified staff across a range of activities such as finance, property, legal, procurement, HR and the like. The competition with the private sector is intense and often all the public sector can do is take on trainees or newly-qualified and give them experience wheich they can tout to the big private sector firms. The ability to recruit and retain specialist professionals is and remains a huge issue.

    The public sector isn't just refuse collectors and social workers and although the "admin" side is often derided by those with little knowledge of how central or local Government actually functions (the analogy with a business isn't inexact) it's a key part of making it work so skilled admin staff are another prerequisite.

    I'd also argue (from some personal knowledge) many public sector workers especially in local Government have had years of below average or even no pay rise at all (and there have been significant job losses) so a little bit of "catch up" may not be unwelcome.

    Plenty on here are clearly not going to enjoy the next few months but the question simply is how did Conservatives and conservatives allow things to get to the point where they could barely muster a quarter of the vote in an election and were arguably the most unpopular and despised Government in generations?
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,691

    ydoethur said:

    ydoethur said:

    Incidentally am I right in thinking that Biden is the first elected President to contest only one Presidential election (i.e. serve a full term but not seek a second) since Rutherford B. Hayes (1876-80)?

    LBJ?

    Kinda.
    No, because he became President before the election.

    I'm thinking of somebody elected to the Presidency, serving one full term and declining to contest the next election. Not just losing, a la Bush, Carter, Hoover, Taft, but not running at all.

    That would let out Johnson, Coolidge, Taft, Harrison.

    Of course, that could then lead to discussing what counts as 'an election.' Biden did contest the primaries.
    He was still “an elected president”

    You are redefining the question because @TSE proved you wrong.

    (I did as well, independently, but @TSE came first)
    No I'm not. The question was (although it could have been more clearly worded) about a president who served one single complete term - elected at the start, and then declining to seek re-election at the end. That wouldn't include LBJ, Truman or Coolidge.

    Trump, Bush Sr, Carter, Hoover, Taft, Harrison and Cleveland all sought re-election and lost (although Cleveland later regained the White House).

    So I'm still coming back to Hayes. He was elected to succeed Grant, and said clearly from the outset (unlike Biden) that he would only serve one term, and he honoured that pledge leading to a very chaotic Republican convention where a somewhat reluctant Garfield was drafted.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 70,691

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    They are not 'Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas.'

    They are fucking up the education system by relying for advice and implementation on people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
    Here is a radical idea. Abolish the DfE. Make all achools wholly independent and decide their own curriulum (but only allowed to be company limited by guarantee or charity to keep the private equity parasites out). Fund them by vouchers and allow reasonable top up. Reduce scope of ofsted inspections to compliance with the law on employing suitably qualified people, child protection etc.

    Teachers are professionals, butt the state out and let them get on with it.

    How's that radical? That's what I've been arguing for since Covid and is a very sensible idea.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
    He hasn't admitted anything. He can claim the advice was he might start getting a bit fuzzy around 2026. In the meantime we can assume there's some sort of informal regency council in place around pressing the nuke button. None of this is a problem.

    Signed, the guy who has been saying for weeks it was a stone Cold certainty he was going
    If An Event comes up in the next four months, and it gets fumbled, there's an issue. Otherwise, it's a dying letter that will be fully dead by polling day.

    People looking for an excuse to back Trump will need to do better than that.
    Quite. Compare wagergate: uge issue 6 weeks back, now you have to be a specialist historian to know what it was.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,538
    Anyone who wants to be thoroughly depressed about life in general, the whole Post Office thing in particular, and the sheer moronic quality of post office/fujitsu employees could do worse than listen to the entirety of Andy Dunks' testimony last week.

    Mind-bogglingly stupid doesn't begin to scratch the surface dear god help us all.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-O24T0TmoVc&pp=ygUecG9zdCBvZmZpY2UgaW5xdWlyeSBhbmR5IGR1bmtz

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-0cDtwg-pg&pp=ygUecG9zdCBvZmZpY2UgaW5xdWlyeSBhbmR5IGR1bmtz
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,578

    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    They are not 'Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas.'

    They are fucking up the education system by relying for advice and implementation on people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
    Here is a radical idea. Abolish the DfE. Make all achools wholly independent and decide their own curriulum (but only allowed to be company limited by guarantee or charity to keep the private equity parasites out). Fund them by vouchers and allow reasonable top up. Reduce scope of ofsted inspections to compliance with the law on employing suitably qualified people, child protection etc.

    Teachers are professionals, butt the state out and let them get on with it.

    What about decentralising the system of implementation and inspection back to the local authorities? It all seemed to work reasonably well before quangos and grifting academy groups ran the show.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694
    edited July 22

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
    He hasn't admitted anything. He can claim the advice was he might start getting a bit fuzzy around 2026. In the meantime we can assume there's some sort of informal regency council in place around pressing the nuke button. None of this is a problem.

    Signed, the guy who has been saying for weeks it was a stone Cold certainty he was going
    It’s a massive problem in zillions of ways. For a start the Dems are admitting they’ve been gaslighting the voters for months if not years. Yes the President is in grave cognitive decline, yeah we tried to hide it, yes we only got found out because of the debate, so now he has to resign. But by the way he’s not actually resigning he’s staying as President with the nuclear codes even tho he thinks
    Zelensky is Putin but don’t worry about it
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 21,541

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    tsk, have you never fornicated ?
    Not as the anointed by God leader of the evangelical Christian caucus. The bible right fawn over Trump like he is a Godly man. I interpret that as they’re all hypocrites on the quiet so don’t see a problem in Trump being a walking embodiment of everything they are opposed to.
    I think what they're opposed to is f*gs and n****rs.

    What Jesus was opposed to, and what they're opposed to, aren't in the same ballpark.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    Taz said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    Pointless having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings.

    Secondly I reckon she easily have several years of playing the Tory blame game and it being effective. It's politics.
    Patently wrong. A pay review body is not saying Pay this, it's saying this is an appropriate level of pay if (which is not our problem) you can afford it. So not following it is not the same as ignoring it
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,593

    viewcode said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Very surprised to see that HYUFD hasn't endorsed Kamala yet.

    I would vote for Trump over Harris so obviously not
    What about Ukraine? And climate change?
    Harris is a woke warrior who wants reparations for slavery, transgender bathrooms...
    (pedant gene activated)

    Bathrooms for transgender, it's the people who are transgender, not the bathrooms.
    All the bathrooms on my GWR train yesterday were Transgender. Ditto Thameslink.

    This is a total outrage. Railways have gone woke.

    They didn't have any baths (or showers) either, just toilet.
    Did you remember to swear at the bathrooms using their correct pronouns?
  • Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
    Good morning @Big_G_NorthWales from a cloudy West Wales (Kernow)

    That didn't take long did it? Things will unravel fast at this rate.

    If they abolish 40% relief on pensions to pay for it I ahall simply hand in my notice and take my pension a couple of years earlier, in the process becoming a net recipient from the treasury instead of a net contributor.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942
    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694

    ydoethur said:

    Back in January I made a series of silly predictions. One was:

    'The Republican candidate will be somebody sane, and the Democratic candidate will be aged below 107.'

    Disconcerting to find that one of them came true.

    But - we still have the crazy candidates for both parts of the Republican ticket.

    Vance isn’t crazy.

    Scary - a proper fascist - yes, but not crazy
    He’s not a fascist. It’s ridic
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,593

    ydoethur said:

    Apropos of nothing:

    The new Outlook app is utterly shit. What were Microsoft thinking?

    bigger profits by making us all shift to a new version
    There is a theory that Microsoft secretly pays billions to everyone who makes email apps to make theirs more shit than Outlook.

    People say that is crazy talk. Then I show them a video of Steve Balmer....
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,479
    edited July 22

    eek said:

    "Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby probe after experts cast doubt

    David Davis will question the conviction of child-killer nurse Lucy Letby using parliamentary privilege from September"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html

    Yet Parliament is in session for another 2 weeks
    How does parliamentary privilege help here?

    Unless he intends to accuse someone else of a crime
    Or incompetence falling well short of professional standards (conduct of a lawyer, or expert witness).

    (Also, there was a judicial ban on public discussion of certain aspects of the trial. I presume this is now moot with the verdict and sentencing, though.)
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    Taz said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    Pointless having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings.

    Secondly I reckon she easily have several years of playing the Tory blame game and it being effective. It's politics.
    Patently wrong. A pay review body is not saying Pay this, it's saying this is an appropriate level of pay if (which is not our problem) you can afford it. So not following it is not the same as ignoring it
    Problem is if you don't pay the previous recommended increase in full the next one is going to be proportionally bigger as it needs to cover the part of the increase that was missed last time round.
  • MisterBedfordshireMisterBedfordshire Posts: 2,252
    edited July 22

    eek said:

    "Former minister David Davis to launch Lucy Letby probe after experts cast doubt

    David Davis will question the conviction of child-killer nurse Lucy Letby using parliamentary privilege from September"

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/lucy-letby-child-killer-nurse-b2583362.html

    Yet Parliament is in session for another 2 weeks
    How does parliamentary privilege help here?

    Unless he intends to accuse someone else of a crime
    There are usually all sorts of reporting restrictions/gags on cases like these under pain of prison for contempt of court, also defamation complications.

    Parliamentary privilege puts a coach and horses through the lot. Libdem MP John Hemming made use of this a fair bit.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,593
    ydoethur said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    They are not 'Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas.'

    They are fucking up the education system by relying for advice and implementation on people who don't have a clue what they're talking about.
    If only someone in the permanent system had an agenda.

    "Nihilists? Fuck me...I mean, say what you want about the tenets of National Socialism, Dude. At least it's an ethos!"
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 77,490

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Only if he is seen in public

    3.5 months to the election including 1.5 months of summer

    Well surely he's got to come out in public, preferably today. I know he's a big fan of Elon Musk but to not confirm such a monumental statement on TV, particularly for such an old school politician as Joe Biden really would be odd
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,578
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic? Absolutely skewer the senile old bastard. We know Trump is doolally- his only saving grace was that he was less doolally than Biden. Now? Go for it.

    On Verstappen? A whiny boy who can’t handle not winning. GP calling him childish over the radio was *special*

    This is what so many Democrats want, as they'd enjoy the boot being on the other foot and the rich irony, but it won't happen.

    Trump is nothing like as senile and doddery as Biden was, and his image is set from his defiance of the assassination attempt.
    Isn’t he? An awful lot of the (rightful) abuse of Biden was him forgetting where he is, who or what he is talking about, rambling off at a tangent, being physically frail etc etc - and we have Trump doing all that.

    Added on top we have Trump’s obsession with shark vs electrocution and his endless whining about how his election was stolen - which wanders squarely into unhinged territory every single time.

    So the Harris camp only has to frame all of that content the exact same way that Trump did. Then add on the rest. Trump the criminal. Trump the fornicator. Trump the fraud. Trump the women-hater fronting a campaign to reduce women to chattel. Yes a republican tried to kill him. That doesn’t negate all the rest of his problems.

    Trump wants the campaign to be all about him. With the departure of Biden he gets his way. Won’t play out as he expects.
    All that would be true if Biden had quit the job of POTUS as well as the Nom. But he hasn’t. Throughout her campaign the Mad Biden will be the actual President, making her and her campaign look idiotic and bizarre

    The more I think about it the crazier it is
    Quitting to install Harris as a succession war rages in the DNC would have been crazy. But if they are now all backing Harris then there’s two scenarios:
    1) He stays in office to let her campaign. She has more time but will get asked if she still supports him being the sitting president
    2) He quits, giving her 3 months in office before the election. She gets to say “I am the president” and give the rednecks time to get used to the idea of an uppity woman - an immigrant at that - being Prez.

    They should do 2, they’ll probably do 1, it’s not as big an issue as you’re suggesting
    2 makes some kinda sense. 1 is potentially calamitous and gives the GOP a trillion attack lines. Its bonkers. The Democrat president is mad - and admits it - but still in office??!
    He hasn't admitted anything. He can claim the advice was he might start getting a bit fuzzy around 2026. In the meantime we can assume there's some sort of informal regency council in place around pressing the nuke button. None of this is a problem.

    Signed, the guy who has been saying for weeks it was a stone Cold certainty he was going
    It’s a massive problem in zillions of ways. For a start the Dems are admitting they’ve been gaslighting the voters for months if not years. Yes the President is in grave cognitive decline, yeah we tried to hide it, yes we only got found out because of the debate, so now he has to resign. But by the way he’s not actually resigning he’s staying as President with the nuclear codes even tho he thinks
    Zelensky is Putin but don’t worry about it
    As a direct result of a humble, craft quality, dildo maker from Camden Town lobbying the Democratic Congress via a political betting blog the most powerful operator on the World stage has fallen. What a result!

    What if you could humiliate the other geriatric Presidential candidate in the race to fall on his sword? Go for it!
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,538
    Leon said:
    Really? Very clumsy and obvious. Surprised it elicits such admiration from you.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,686

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610
    edited July 22
    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    Would imagine it's nearer £1100 now, anything half decent is now very expensive to rent..

    There are well paid contractors I know who rent who have hard to downsize 3 or so times over the past 5 years as rents hit levels even they thought were taking the mickey...
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,538
    edited July 22
    On topic? Not that I read the header, obvs, but Trump seems perfectly compos mentis to me, a bit brash and out there but wasn't he ever thus. Look at one of the many clips doing the rounds of Biden speaking four or eight years ago, which people use to show the contrast vs today, and Trump is sharper, or there's not much in it, vs those. He has got at least another good four years in him.
  • stodgestodge Posts: 13,686

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
    That seems completely contrary to the messages from her interview yesterday so if Sky say something I'd be looking elsewhere for verification.

    Starmer is no fool (clearly) - he may decide in the immediate aftermath of a landslide victory he has some latitude to do the painful things (they won't be popular with many of those who comment on here but Starmer won't be bothered about that) in the first 12-18 months of his administration.

    It might be refreshing to have a political leader who does what he/she thinks is right and doesn't bend or weave to whatever the polls or focus groups are saying or chase the majority on every issue.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942
    stodge said:

    Taz said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    Pointless having an independent pay review body if you ignore its findings.

    Secondly I reckon she easily have several years of playing the Tory blame game and it being effective. It's politics.
    One of the problems is what people think of as "public sector workers". Are we thinking central Government, local Government or both?

    The other side is the public sector needs professionally trained and qualified staff across a range of activities such as finance, property, legal, procurement, HR and the like. The competition with the private sector is intense and often all the public sector can do is take on trainees or newly-qualified and give them experience wheich they can tout to the big private sector firms. The ability to recruit and retain specialist professionals is and remains a huge issue.

    The public sector isn't just refuse collectors and social workers and although the "admin" side is often derided by those with little knowledge of how central or local Government actually functions (the analogy with a business isn't inexact) it's a key part of making it work so skilled admin staff are another prerequisite.

    I'd also argue (from some personal knowledge) many public sector workers especially in local Government have had years of below average or even no pay rise at all (and there have been significant job losses) so a little bit of "catch up" may not be unwelcome.

    Plenty on here are clearly not going to enjoy the next few months but the question simply is how did Conservatives and conservatives allow things to get to the point where they could barely muster a quarter of the vote in an election and were arguably the most unpopular and despised Government in generations?
    Covid and Ukraine. The government did not operate in a vacuum. The most significant impacts on peoples lives were from paying for covid and the energy shock from Ukraine. I really think people on PB have a blind spot on this. Incumbent governments around the world have suffered, yet in the UK its just because the Tories were incompetent? Well they were, a bit, but they were also given a really shit hand to play.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,191

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer
    Good morning @Big_G_NorthWales from a cloudy West Wales (Kernow)

    That didn't take long did it? Things will unravel fast at this rate.

    If they abolish 40% relief on pensions to pay for it I ahall simply hand in my notice and take my pension a couple of years earlier, in the process becoming a net recipient from the treasury instead of a net contributor.
    I expect pensions and inheritance tax to be targeted without doubt

    If you apply 5.5% to the public sector with a predicted similar rise due to the triple lock in pensions the rises in private school fees plus non dom status changes look like petty cash

    I would just say however the conservative party abandoned everything with their total incompetence and can only look on as spectators for a very long time
  • AramintaMoonbeamQCAramintaMoonbeamQC Posts: 3,854
    edited July 22

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
  • StereodogStereodog Posts: 582
    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Dems still have a significant Biden problem. He’s too senile to stand again, but he’s just fine and dandy to be leader of the free world until November?

    Every gaffe he makes between now and then will remind voters that the Democrats were prepared, until the last moment, to foist a clearly-demented president on voters for a second term

    He really needs to step down from the job, as well

    Paradoxically, the thought of a doddery old has-been in the White House might harm Trump more than Kamala. (eta I agree Biden should step down.)
    I think this is gonna be a real issue for the Dems as the illogicality sinks in with voters. “OK we admit, he’s in grave cognitive decline, the debate showed the real Biden, he’s gaga. But he’s keeping the job and the nuclear codes til January 2025, he’ll be fine, stop worrying”

    This is unsustainable. It’s THE attack line for the GOP and they will surely use it, relentlessly

    “How can we trust anything you say when you kept an insane man in the White House, a man who is getting worse, daily, and by the way he’s STILL THERE”
    You can't see the difference between four more months, and four more years ?

    Biden's current capacity is a legitimate question, but yours is hardly a slam dunk argument.
    It’s unarguable. Biden is not gonna be the Dem candidate because we all saw his dementia in the debate. Biden himself has now admitted it - unless he’s quitting for some OTHER reason he hasn’t specified?

    Yet he’s absolutely ticketty boo to have the toughest most important job in the world til next
    year? Even tho he’s demented, and admits it?
    We all saw his AGE in the debate. Do you think there is no gradation in the very old between being exactly the same as they were 40 years ago and having dementia? My grandmother is about Biden's age and she occasionally repeats a story she told a few hours ago or forgets a name but she doesn't have dementia. I agree that he was too old to run but don't present your speculation as a fact.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694
    edited July 22
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:
    Really? Very clumsy and obvious. Surprised it elicits such admiration from you.
    It’s got at least 14m views so I’m not alone in finding it amusing

    It also cleverly references that INCREDIBLE gaffe when Biden called Pete Buttigieg “Senator Bootyjuice” which is so sublime it is significant evidence that we live in a Simulation
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,223
    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    IMF bailout in 2028, Labour has set us on the path to it already.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    If you were really interested it's not hard to find out what Brum rents are. Let me guess your mortgage is paid off?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,191

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer

    The cost of not paying salaries that enable you to recruit and retain teachers, nurses and others is far, far higher than the cost of doing so. The same applies to the two child policy. Short-termism guided by opinion polls has cost this country dear. It's about time it was consigned to the rubbish bin.

    Then you have the choice of higher taxes and interest rates
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942
    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    I earn 50K a year more a less so I know what the take home is. If its 750 for rent and then 150 for council tax, add in electricity and gas and water and I think you should still be getting around 2000 a month to spend. I just find it odd that the story doesn't indicate or show the hovel she is forced to live in to get by.

    Many of us have lived in pretty small or crappy places before we were able to buy. Many of us were lucky to be gifted deposits. I know its not always easy, but this story is lacking some key details.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694
    Stereodog said:

    Leon said:

    Nigelb said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    The Dems still have a significant Biden problem. He’s too senile to stand again, but he’s just fine and dandy to be leader of the free world until November?

    Every gaffe he makes between now and then will remind voters that the Democrats were prepared, until the last moment, to foist a clearly-demented president on voters for a second term

    He really needs to step down from the job, as well

    Paradoxically, the thought of a doddery old has-been in the White House might harm Trump more than Kamala. (eta I agree Biden should step down.)
    I think this is gonna be a real issue for the Dems as the illogicality sinks in with voters. “OK we admit, he’s in grave cognitive decline, the debate showed the real Biden, he’s gaga. But he’s keeping the job and the nuclear codes til January 2025, he’ll be fine, stop worrying”

    This is unsustainable. It’s THE attack line for the GOP and they will surely use it, relentlessly

    “How can we trust anything you say when you kept an insane man in the White House, a man who is getting worse, daily, and by the way he’s STILL THERE”
    You can't see the difference between four more months, and four more years ?

    Biden's current capacity is a legitimate question, but yours is hardly a slam dunk argument.
    It’s unarguable. Biden is not gonna be the Dem candidate because we all saw his dementia in the debate. Biden himself has now admitted it - unless he’s quitting for some OTHER reason he hasn’t specified?

    Yet he’s absolutely ticketty boo to have the toughest most important job in the world til next
    year? Even tho he’s demented, and admits it?
    We all saw his AGE in the debate. Do you think there is no gradation in the very old between being exactly the same as they were 40 years ago and having dementia? My grandmother is about Biden's age and she occasionally repeats a story she told a few hours ago or forgets a name but she doesn't have dementia. I agree that he was too old to run but don't present your speculation as a fact.
    Biden thinks President Zelensky is President Putin. That’s why he has now admitted he’s not fit to stand again even tho a week ago he firmly told us he was absolutely fine, never better. How did he misjudge himself so badly? Is there something wrong with his brain, do you think?

    Anyway even tho he’s not standing because he’s thinks President Zelensky is President Putin he’s still absolutely fine to be President of the United
    States but it’s all ok because Hunter the crack addict will run everything until next January
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    If you were really interested it's not hard to find out what Brum rents are. Let me guess your mortgage is paid off?
    Nope. How can I know what her rent is if I don't know what she is renting?
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Seems to be a fair bit of city centre flats in that rental range

    if she is on £50,000 her take home will be £33,000 at the very worst.

    Now assume rent is £1100, council tax is £140 or so, gas electric £100, water £40..

    That's £1400 a month or 50% of take home pay. And I'm probably underestimating the bills..
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 27,178
    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    It does not really matter whether Emma personally can afford to buy a house or not. It is whether she is typical of her cohort.

    An online mortgage calculator suggests someone on £50k with no significant outgoings can borrow £230k but probably she has a student loan and possibly others, and that is betting without the need to stump up the deposit.

    Emma's is the antithesis of those articles about how easy it is for young people if only they'd cut out Starbucks and avocado toast, but on reading to the end you find they are on two professional salaries, have moved back in with mum and dad to save rent, and inherited five or six figures when granny died.
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,538
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:
    Really? Very clumsy and obvious. Surprised it elicits such admiration from you.
    It’s got at least 14m views so I’m not alone in finding it amusing

    It also cleverly references that INCREDIBLE gaffe when Biden called Pete Buttigieg “Senator Bootyjuice” which is so sublime it is significant evidence that we live in a Simulation
    Clips of dogs barking at televisions routinely get 200m views. I'm sure 13.89m of the views in this case are because it just popped up on peoples' feeds. And 0.11m of them were because someone on a social media platform said - you've got to look at this it's AMAZEBALLS.
  • logical_songlogical_song Posts: 9,871
    TOPPING said:

    On topic? Not that I read the header, obvs, but Trump seems perfectly compos mentis to me, a bit brash and out there but wasn't he ever thus. Look at one of the many clips doing the rounds of Biden speaking four or eight years ago, which people use to show the contrast vs today, and Trump is sharper, or there's not much in it, vs those. He has got at least another good four years in him.

    Really, tell that to Tim Apple, Mike Pounce, Nambia, Thighland and Yo Semites.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5x2ZR0DIyM
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    The bond markets will Trussify her if such cakeism continues.
    Good morning

    Sky are reporting Reeves is expected to move to abolish the 2 child benefit cap due to pressure from her left

    Sky showed a you gov poll yesterday that by 60%/28% the public support the cap

    Fiscal responsibility for Labour seems to be an optional choice depending on their politics

    I would expect the result of these inflationary moves will see interest rates remain high for much longer

    The cost of not paying salaries that enable you to recruit and retain teachers, nurses and others is far, far higher than the cost of doing so. The same applies to the two child policy. Short-termism guided by opinion polls has cost this country dear. It's about time it was consigned to the rubbish bin.

    Then you have the choice of higher taxes and interest rates
    Yes, the previous government left a disastrous legacy.

  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 6,560

    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    I earn 50K a year more a less so I know what the take home is. If its 750 for rent and then 150 for council tax, add in electricity and gas and water and I think you should still be getting around 2000 a month to spend. I just find it odd that the story doesn't indicate or show the hovel she is forced to live in to get by.

    Many of us have lived in pretty small or crappy places before we were able to buy. Many of us were lucky to be gifted deposits. I know its not always easy, but this story is lacking some key details.
    They are always are, and it may not be that these are illegitimate details or make the person in question financially incontinent or making silly decisions. Dependents from previous relationships, pets, requirements to live somewhere to be nearer a family member you are caring for, need to run a car for various reasons, outstanding loan payments etc etc - these are all things that will reduce your disposable income or your options. The problem is we just get the headline, and you can draw very little from it.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694
    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:
    Really? Very clumsy and obvious. Surprised it elicits such admiration from you.
    It’s got at least 14m views so I’m not alone in finding it amusing

    It also cleverly references that INCREDIBLE gaffe when Biden called Pete Buttigieg “Senator Bootyjuice” which is so sublime it is significant evidence that we live in a Simulation
    Clips of dogs barking at televisions routinely get 200m views. I'm sure 13.89m of the views in this case are because it just popped up on peoples' feeds. And 0.11m of them were because someone on a social media platform said - you've got to look at this it's AMAZEBALLS.
    “Senator Bootyjuice”. He said that. Biden actually said that. When he meant “Pete Buttigieg”
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,451
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    IMF bailout in 2028, Labour has set us on the path to it already.

    How?

  • A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
    Rightmove says chi chi 3 bed flat in the City Centre, or 3/4 bed house in the leafy suburbs for £2,000pcm. And there you have it.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942
    eek said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Seems to be a fair bit of city centre flats in that rental range

    if she is on £50,000 her take home will be £33,000 at the very worst.

    Now assume rent is £1100, council tax is £140 or so, gas electric £100, water £40..

    That's £1400 a month or 50% of take home pay. And I'm probably underestimating the bills..
    My point is that a city centre flat is a choice - could she rent somewhere cheaper to help save money for a deposit?
  • Pro_RataPro_Rata Posts: 5,180
    WWF to put oysters on the endangered list due to a frightening uptick in PB Tory pearl clutching.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 27,578
    TOPPING said:

    On topic? Not that I read the header, obvs, but Trump seems perfectly compos mentis to me, a bit brash and out there but wasn't he ever thus. Look at one of the many clips doing the rounds of Biden speaking four or eight years ago, which people use to show the contrast vs today, and Trump is sharper, or there's not much in it, vs those. He has got at least another good four years in him.

    His late father disagrees.

    https://youtu.be/pygxuhEUcnA?si=-5O0Gu05DZOMxSFx
  • MattWMattW Posts: 21,993
    Orwell vs Kafka. R4. Now.

    Helen Lewis and Ian Hislop talking about Doublethink, applicable to both Trumpists and Putinists.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/live:bbc_radio_fourfm
  • LeonLeon Posts: 53,694
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    IMF bailout in 2028, Labour has set us on the path to it already.
    Labour’s approach to the education system seems to be “make the state system so bad everyone has to go private” but “make the private sector so expensive no one can afford it”
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 42,538
    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:

    TOPPING said:

    Leon said:
    Really? Very clumsy and obvious. Surprised it elicits such admiration from you.
    It’s got at least 14m views so I’m not alone in finding it amusing

    It also cleverly references that INCREDIBLE gaffe when Biden called Pete Buttigieg “Senator Bootyjuice” which is so sublime it is significant evidence that we live in a Simulation
    Clips of dogs barking at televisions routinely get 200m views. I'm sure 13.89m of the views in this case are because it just popped up on peoples' feeds. And 0.11m of them were because someone on a social media platform said - you've got to look at this it's AMAZEBALLS.
    “Senator Bootyjuice”. He said that. Biden actually said that. When he meant “Pete Buttigieg”
    Hysterical.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
    I'm sorry but it actually depends where your job is and how much you can work from home.

    No point moving to a cheaper area if you then have to pay £20 a day to commute to the office 5 days a week. That £300 rent saving isn't actually saving you any money...
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
    Rightmove says chi chi 3 bed flat in the City Centre, or 3/4 bed house in the leafy suburbs for £2,000pcm. And there you have it.
    Does a single woman need a 4 bedroom house?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 48,593
    edited July 22
    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    3,230 after tax per month, the PAYE calculators say.... (no pension)

    so 2/3rds would be 2,150 a moth on housing and bills.

    If she is a renting house in Birmingham, that would be north of 1,250 for something non-shitty.
  • A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Not a million miles from Birmingham with a regular train service to commute on.

    https://www.rightmove.co.uk/properties/138794906?utm_campaign=property-details&utm_content=buying&utm_medium=sharing&utm_source=copytoclipboard#/&channel=RES_BUY
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,565
    This is clearly 4D chess from Labour.

    Hike public sector pay. Abolish the 2 child benefit cap. Throw 35% at doctors. Raise taxes. Sink the economy. Rejoin the EU, and be a net beneficiary so they can fund Labour's profligacy. It all makes perfect sense ;)
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
    Rightmove says chi chi 3 bed flat in the City Centre, or 3/4 bed house in the leafy suburbs for £2,000pcm. And there you have it.
    Does a single woman need a 4 bedroom house?
    eek said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I was willing to believe this, if she was in the SE, but then noticed that she lives in Birmingham.

    She can afford to buy a house, but not a 5 bed in Edgbaston. Also, what the hell is she renting that costs £2k per month in Brum?
    Precisely and its telling that its not mentioned what property she lives in. Sometimes you have to prioritise.
    I'm sorry but it actually depends where your job is and how much you can work from home.

    No point moving to a cheaper area if you then have to pay £20 a day to commute to the office 5 days a week. That £300 rent saving isn't actually saving you any money...
    Riding a bike is cheap. Look - my point is there is not enough information in the story to see whether the headline stacks up or not. My suspicion is she is renting a larger house than she needs. I don't know that for a fact. But I cannot feel sorry for her without more context.
  • eekeek Posts: 27,610

    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    3,230 after tax per month, the PAYE calculators say.... (no pension)

    so 2/3rds would be 2,150 a moth on housing and bills.

    If she is a renting house in Birmingham, that would be north of 1,250 for something non-shitty.
    + council tax £130 minimum, bills will add another £200.

    So minimum £1400 more likely to be £1700.

  • CookieCookie Posts: 13,125

    Cookie said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    I'm not sure I buy the argument that strikes can be headed off by higher pay rises.
    Strikes are not an inverae function of pay, they are a function of the expectation of their success in achieving pay increases above whatever the employer has offered. Explicitly statìng that pay increases are there to avert strikes is counterproductive because it telegraphs that the employer is sensitive to that tactic.
    The issue isn't really about stopping public sector employees going on strike. It's persuading people to become public sector employees at all.

    For those asking who these pay review bodies are, there are details of the teacher one here;

    https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/school-teachers-review-body
    Yes, that's fair enough and I do buy that argument.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,223
    There needs to be a reckoning for the mainstream leftist media in the US who have helped cover up Biden's rate of decline over the last few years. It's been an open secret that his mental faculties have been declining but the white house staffers pressured a pliant media to not report the truth "for the greater good".

    The owners of these companies need to clean house and get rid of all of those journalists who helped the white house cover this up. All of those selectively reported events, copy pasted denials and complete lies they reported for the past two years has denied the American people a proper say on who should face Trump this year and it's likely going to result in a Trump victory.

    A journalist's responsibility should be to the facts, not some sense of "greater good". As soon as that moral compass is distorted this is the inevitable result.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 16,942
    eek said:

    stodge said:

    A perennial favourite on PB - the story that just doesn't quite add up or ring true, or could be changed by making a few different choices.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c7209lk8x2wo

    "Software engineer Emma Harris earns £50,000 a year and said the cost of renting and bills takes up about two-thirds of her salary. "I am not likely to ever own a house and it’s just depressing," she said."

    We are not told what she is renting now. Is it a flat? Two bedroom house? Could she rent somewhere smaller?

    I don't know why you don't believe it unless you choose not to or you think it's been put up to push some kind of political agenda.

    £50,000 doesn't mean she has that amount as income so once she's paid tax, NI and perhaps contributed to a pension that will be reduced. As for renting, perhaps you'd prefer if she lived in a box by the side of the road and I confess I don't know renting prices in Birmingham but let's say £750 pm so that's £9k gone plus her other costs.

    I can believe it.
    3,230 after tax per month, the PAYE calculators say.... (no pension)

    so 2/3rds would be 2,150 a moth on housing and bills.

    If she is a renting house in Birmingham, that would be north of 1,250 for something non-shitty.
    + council tax £130 minimum, bills will add another £200.

    So minimum £1400 more likely to be £1700.

    Single person discount on the council tax, surely?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 41,598
    If Harris gets the nomination and wins in November, I half-expect the current Supreme Court to find a 'constitutional' reason that a woman cannot be president...
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,223

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Bless.

    Rachel Reeves is preparing to hand millions of public sector workers an above-inflation pay rise and attempt to blame the Conservatives for any tax rises needed to fund it

    https://x.com/thetimes/status/1815281019026567442

    So she'll accept the recommendations of the independent pay review bodies, rather than the previous approach of precipitating strikes by ignoring them.
    All she has to do now is fund it.

    And then all the coming recommendations from review bodies. 35% pay rise anyone ?
    Early signs from Labour are dreadful

    Fucking up the education system to please woke agendas

    Handing out money we don’t have to the public sector

    IMF bailout in 2028, Labour has set us on the path to it already.

    How?

    Spending money we don't have. We saw what happened when Liz Truss tried to do that.
  • TweedledeeTweedledee Posts: 1,405
    TOPPING said:

    On topic? Not that I read the header, obvs, but Trump seems perfectly compos mentis to me, a bit brash and out there but wasn't he ever thus. Look at one of the many clips doing the rounds of Biden speaking four or eight years ago, which people use to show the contrast vs today, and Trump is sharper, or there's not much in it, vs those. He has got at least another good four years in him.

    Anyone his age is in susceptible to *suggestions* they are losing it even if completely unfounded. Trump is now vulnerable where he was bulletproof is the point.
This discussion has been closed.