Why the Tories find themselves in a pickle – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
In theory today's announcements of cuts to spending should be good news for interest rate announcements as they're disinflationary. Also tax rises are, in the round, disinflationary.Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Obviously public sector wage increases are inflationary.1 -
...anf Conservative Friends of Israel everywhereSirNorfolkPassmore said:
This is welcome news for the nation and particularly for the makers of cheesy Wotsits.TheScreamingEagles said:
The late Mr Pickles is still alive.DavidL said:The late Mr Eric Pickles would appear a colossus in the current field
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/conservative-friends-israel-lobby-group-free-trips/0 -
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).eek said:
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...Sandpit said:
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec,
2) route trains into new tunnel
3) refurbish old tunnel
4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..0 -
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...another_richard said:
A comment of astounding naivety.ydoethur said:
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.another_richard said:
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....1 -
Mr. eek, fair or not, constructing high speed rail for Wales when it was promised and not delivered for both Leeds and Manchester would be a fantastic way of pissing off the North of England and uniting both sides of the Pennines in annoyance.1
-
To make the boat race competitive Cambridge need to face Oxford Brookes from next year onwards.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A1 -
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..3 -
There are SEMI deranged MAGAs now?Theuniondivvie said:
Comparing the magnificence that is Trump to Our Lord is obviously a compliment to JC, as any semi deranged MAGAt will tell you.TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/1
And yet people accuse him of not expanding his base.0 -
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.4 -
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%Benpointer said:
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?0 -
Where's Stormy Daniels telling us that the flag protecting his modesty is unnecessary?TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/12 -
The Dems are being prejudiced against the weirdos aka the GOP now.
https://x.com/vivekgramaswamy/status/1817722684089713119?s=61&t=LYVEHh2mqFy1oUJAdCfe-Q0 -
Maybe so and maybe no.eek said:
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...another_richard said:
A comment of astounding naivety.ydoethur said:
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.another_richard said:
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.0 -
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.Smart51 said:
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/how-our-lib-dem-mps-voted-on-the-tobacco-and-vapes-bill-2nd-reading-75028.html
This comment hits the nail on the head:
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?1 -
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A0 -
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were LeaversFF43 said:
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/28/lib-dems-plan-to-finish-the-job-in-tory-heartlands-says-ed-davey0 -
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).another_richard said:
Maybe so and maybe no.eek said:
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...another_richard said:
A comment of astounding naivety.ydoethur said:
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.another_richard said:
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.0 -
It's this kind of thing that highlights the train, skill and productive equipment gap.Morris_Dancer said:Just as an aside, it always astonishes me that Christian depictions of someone crucified have the nails in the wrong place, but there we are.
That's how this happens -
3 -
And why isn't Kamala cackling like a hyena as she plunges that spear into his toned and tortured flesh?Roger said:
Where's Stormy Daniels telling us that the flag protecting his modesty is unnecessary?TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/10 -
I think it’s Nancy Pelosi.kinabalu said:
And why isn't Kamala cackling like a hyena as she plunges that spear into his toned and tortured flesh?Roger said:
Where's Stormy Daniels telling us that the flag protecting his modesty is unnecessary?TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/10 -
Would the black market for cigarettes under the proposal be informal friends and family or organised crime? I suspect the former is significantly more likely. It is a shame NZ didnt try it first as this is a question it would be good to be confident on before implementation.tlg86 said:
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.Smart51 said:
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/how-our-lib-dem-mps-voted-on-the-tobacco-and-vapes-bill-2nd-reading-75028.html
This comment hits the nail on the head:
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?1 -
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and sillyHYUFD said:
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%Benpointer said:
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?3 -
That isn't really true, Reform did best on 4th July with 50 to 60 year olds while it was the Sunak Tories that did best with pensioners. Reform even beat the Tories with under 30s.RochdalePioneers said:No pickle. There are two groups of voters - the hard right and the traditional right.
No matter how had the Tories try to cosplay Farage they will only ever be a berk in a silly costume. The hard right want the Nigel and can have him - look he's in parliament leading a party and everything.
The Tories have spent a decade trying to edge out Farage by getting more and more mental - and look what good it did them. A record vote for the nutter party and a record desertion of the non-nutter vote from themselves.
Their route back to power is simple: Fuck Farage.
Tell the Brexit obsessives and jingoists that they should join Reform. Bring back the Conservative Party, oppose from a base of sensible economics, pro business and moderate social values. Recover. Win.
Yes, they will lose some of their vote to Farage. But *that has already happened*. But they can win back all their other lost voters. And their self-respect. And besides which the Faragists are genuinely dying off. Unless the Tories can rediscover policies which encourage 20-somethings to vote for them, they will also die off.
In France too and Italy Le Pen and Meloni do best with the middle aged not the elderly. Indeed in France Macron and his party poll best with pensioners now.
In the US too Trump's voteshare with the young has risen but his voteshare with over 65s hasn't since 20200 -
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
1 -
The Great Unwashed have turned up at Gatwick Airport this morning, obviously undeterred by the sentences handed to their friends last week.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2024/07/29/just-stop-oil-try-block-departures-gatwick-airport/0 -
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.HYUFD said:
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were LeaversFF43 said:
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/28/lib-dems-plan-to-finish-the-job-in-tory-heartlands-says-ed-davey1 -
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A1 -
Why would organised crime leave an incredibly lucrative field to amateurs?noneoftheabove said:
Would the black market for cigarettes under the proposal be informal friends and family or organised crime? I suspect the former is significantly more likely. It is a shame NZ didnt try it first as this is a question it would be good to be confident on before implementation.tlg86 said:
That would be the Liberal Democrats that want to ban smoking and legalise cannabis.Smart51 said:
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
https://www.libdemvoice.org/how-our-lib-dem-mps-voted-on-the-tobacco-and-vapes-bill-2nd-reading-75028.html
This comment hits the nail on the head:
If we as a party believe prohibition isn’t working for recreational drugs , then why seek to increase the prohibition to more things and fuel the black market and organised crime groups with more things they can do?
ETA and we already know the answer because the black market already exists. Half the tobacco smoked in this country is smuggled0 -
Although Cable's chapter did propose abolishing the department in which he later served as Secretary of State for five years!Smart51 said:
1st std observation about the Orange Book. Mentioning the Orange Book shows two things; that you're not a Lib Dem and you don't understand them.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
2nd std observation about the Orange Book. It isn't a right wing manual. Remember, for example, that Vince Cable wrote one of the essays.
The Lib Dems don't set out to be a centrist party, or any other position on the Left - Right axis of politics. They set out to be a Liberal Party on the Liberal - Authoritarian axis of politics. Think of someone determined to sit on the front row of seats being pigeonholed because they're sat on the left or right side of the row. You've mischaracterised them. Their aim was neither left nor right.
TSE asks a fair question. The Orange Book was on the economically liberal side of things (prefigured free schools, for instance) and indeed Cable, despite his Labour roots, was relatively right wing on economic matters as many SDP-ers were.
My view is that wing (my wing, to be honest) is rather out of favour with Lib Dem grassroots post-Coalition. But SE England Lib Dem MPs may well be more sympathetic if only on electoral grounds - they aren't going to hang onto seats in Surrey, Sussex and Oxfordshire by tacking left of Labour.2 -
There's also a big cost in fighting the pay award recommended, in terms both of industrial action and recruitment/retention.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..0 -
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A0 -
No, I'm pretty sure that's supposed to be Trump. 🧐TheScreamingEagles said:
I think it’s Nancy Pelosi.kinabalu said:
And why isn't Kamala cackling like a hyena as she plunges that spear into his toned and tortured flesh?Roger said:
Where's Stormy Daniels telling us that the flag protecting his modesty is unnecessary?TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/14 -
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...0 -
They already tried that when Brookes first became a university. Brookes told them to Foxtrot Oscar.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A0 -
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.Nigelb said:FPT
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'.tlg86 said:
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.StillWaters said:
This is the still that has upset peopleJosiasJessop said:
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?Nigelb said:
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.BartholomewRoberts said:
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.MisterBedfordshire said:Statement by the Iranian Government.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
Je Suis Paris.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C97WzsCJInz
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion.
Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.3 -
Great thread.
The economic significance of the battery industry is still hugely underestimated.
1/Here's something I've been wondering about recently: How did the U.S. miss the battery revolution?
With every other technological revolution, we anticipated it well in advance, and as a result we were the first -- or one of the first -- to take advantage of it...
https://x.com/Noahpinion/status/1817597177281335482
2 -
Re the conversation earlier I could be wrong (I often am) but I have never found any issue between Social Democrats and Liberals in the LDs unlike the wings of other parties.1
-
Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.0 -
That's what happens when promises meet reality.eek said:
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).another_richard said:
Maybe so and maybe no.eek said:
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...another_richard said:
A comment of astounding naivety.ydoethur said:
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.another_richard said:
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
Costs rise and timescales lengthen.
I'm old enough to remember when PBers would angrily deny that HS2 could cost more than £30bn.
1 -
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.1 -
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..3 -
But as % not that
Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...TimS said:Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.0 -
Ah is it? Ok. I'm getting my uppity DEM women in pantsuits mixed up!TheScreamingEagles said:
I think it’s Nancy Pelosi.kinabalu said:
And why isn't Kamala cackling like a hyena as she plunges that spear into his toned and tortured flesh?Roger said:
Where's Stormy Daniels telling us that the flag protecting his modesty is unnecessary?TheScreamingEagles said:MAGA: The Olympics are insulting christians!
Also MAGA:
https://x.com/acnewsitics/status/1817252274801954991/photo/10 -
And then they decided to build a tunnel through the Chilterns to appease Cheryl Gillan. All they achieved there was turning a safe Tory seat into a safe(ish) Lib Dem one..another_richard said:
That's what happens when promises meet reality.eek said:
What costs weren't predicted - the problem was the old Government changed it's mind and then said - oops costs have increased (because we changed them).another_richard said:
Maybe so and maybe no.eek said:
The route made money even when half the possible benefits were ignored (the green book never looked at the benefits of more trains between say York to Doncaster / Grantham). Now individually each one is probably only a few million a year but it rapidly adds up...another_richard said:
A comment of astounding naivety.ydoethur said:
It is very difficult to see how (for example) a new railway line connecting the four of the five largest cities in England would lose money.another_richard said:
There's also a fundamental difference between those things that will lose money later and those things that will make money later.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
Many of the things claimed to be of the second sort are actually of the first sort.
And what decides whether an investment ends in making or losing money is often outside your control and sometimes just luck.
It depends on if its future net income (itself dependent upon future demand, future income, future costs) would ever match its incurred costs.
Multiple uncertainties over a multi-generational time period.
Freight and local traffic improvements alone means HS2 makes sense. also you could easily build a couple of massive new towns on the ECML once you route the priority services via HS2.
Remember the biggest returns with HS2 are on the Eastern Leg, the only reason Manchester was so important is that the WCML is running at capacity and needs the relief....
Quite frankly so many claims and promises have been made they just bore me now.
The only reality have been the increases of costs and time to build it.
As these weren't predicted why should other predictions be believed ?
What the government should do is privatise HS2 thus allowing its advocates to own it themselves, pay for it themselves and take the claimed future profits of it themselves.
That might even allow it to be built quicker and cheaper than governments tend to do.
Costs rise and timescales lengthen.
I'm old enough to remember when PBers would angrily deny that HS2 could cost more than £30bn.0 -
Indeed so. They should all be banned from striking, same as the police and the armed forces.Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..0 -
Good news: Russian artillery losses reaching a new high. 74 reported for the day, 1,477 for the month of July so far.
Bad news: A British government reaching for cuts to infrastructure spending, again, as a temporary expedient to balance the books, and because they're incapable of making the case to the public of the necessity to invest for the future, at the cost of tax rises or cuts to current spending, in the present. Cowards.
Meanwhile in Ireland, the word is that the government will give voters another cash bung in the form of a credit on their electricity bills. How everyone will wish this money was more wisely spent when the corporation tax bonanza dries up.3 -
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A0 -
It's political games alright, but also nonsense as the OBR regularly publishes reviews of the public finances. Labour knew where we stand before the election took place, and then kept quiet throughout the campaign, and only now are we going to find out what they are going to do. i.e. Cuts and tax rises.turbotubbs said:Its all just from the new government playbook 101. Of course its worse than we feared.
0 -
The interplay between the sacred and the profane in western art long predates the Enlightenment.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.Nigelb said:FPT
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'.tlg86 said:
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.StillWaters said:
This is the still that has upset peopleJosiasJessop said:
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?Nigelb said:
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.BartholomewRoberts said:
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.MisterBedfordshire said:Statement by the Iranian Government.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
Je Suis Paris.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C97WzsCJInz
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion.
Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
Trying to change that is beyond regressive - it invites the sort of barbarism we see in the clerical autocracies.0 -
I'm fairly sure the being "lost for words for a moment" was acting on Atkinson's part. The point was that Melchett had comically misinterpreted the nature of the trap Blackadder had set. Blackadder was taken aback but wasn't able to correct his superior officer.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A1 -
It needs investment in productivity improvements which show a positive return.eek said:
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
Investing is easy.
Getting a positive return on that investment is much harder and can be a matter of luck.
That applies whether the investment is in business, infrastructure, public sector productivity or merely who the Dem VP choice will be.0 -
I was politically active during the Alliance and the merger and attended the Liberal Party Special Assembly at Blackpool in January 1988 which endorsed the merger. There was, on the Liberal side, some resistance led by Michael Meadowcroft and some of the northern liberals but the merger line was always going to win.kjh said:Re the conversation earlier I could be wrong (I often am) but I have never found any issue between Social Democrats and Liberals in the LDs unlike the wings of other parties.
Locally, we lost one activist (former SDP) who went off with the Owenites but kept everyone else though it was a very difficult time.
After 35 years, no one cares except our opponents who try to make an issue out of it.
It will be interesting to see if, by 2050, it still matters in the Conservative Party how you voted in the 2016 referendum.1 -
You need to start investing money first before you can talk about whether the return was positive or not.another_richard said:
It needs investment in productivity improvements which show a positive return.eek said:
Throwing money at staff won't solve productivity increases - that requires investment in productivity improvements and guess what the last Government didn't spend that much money doing?another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Hint I was on gcloud for many years but gave up because it really wasn't worth the hassle...
Investing is easy.
Getting a positive return on that investment is much harder and can be a matter of luck.
That applies whether the investment is in business, infrastructure, public sector productivity or merely who the Dem VP choice will be.
In reality the last Government hasn't done so there are core functions at HMRC that take you to a page from 2007 which then has a manual backend to attach money to the account...0 -
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..0 -
Turnout fell 7.5%TimS said:Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.0 -
Not usually, but there have been in the NHS and education over the last couple of years. And the railways, which are quasi-public sector.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..0 -
Wrong question anyway.Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
"Pay rises have to come from productivity" is about how much public sector workers ought to be paid. But there is no ought.
The cost of a worker is somewhere in the overlap between the amount the employer is willing to offer and the employee is willing to accept. That's if there is an overlap at all. If there isn't the post doesn't get filled, which is increasingly what's happening. With the consequences we see around us.
If the state isn't willing to pay staff enough, it needs to get used to running with holes in the staffing structure. You can complain, you can stamp your feet, but you can't force people to do these jobs.
(See also: civil servants and similar ought to be in the office five days a week.)2 -
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.0 -
The Tories used to be a pro business, fiscally responsible, pro European outward looking party. That party is dead.
Corbyn's unpopularity seduced the Tory right in thinking the public were on board with their extreme view of Brexit.
Brexit killed the Tory party.6 -
And the question of who leaves if pay is constrained:Nigelb said:
There's also a big cost in fighting the pay award recommended, in terms both of industrial action and recruitment/retention.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..- The most productive, competent and ambitious who are able to find better paid jobs elsewhere
- The time servers who most value the other attributes of public sector employment
2 -
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?0 -
Or give them some sort of associate status. Might be a legal fight over this but Cambridge lawyers...Tweedledee said:
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.0 -
No it hasn't. As things stand building the Stonehenge bypass would just move the queue 10 miles west to the end of the Wylye Bypass.turbotubbs said:
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).eek said:
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...Sandpit said:
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec,
2) route trains into new tunnel
3) refurbish old tunnel
4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.0 -
Nah. Lazy fuckers can't be arsed, can they?stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
1 -
Yes, there will inevitably be a fall off in political interest after a significant event - there always is. How long the ennui will last remains to be seen - I suspect there's more goodwill for the new Government than you and the other Conservative supporters might think especially if we see improving economic news.squareroot2 said:
But as % not that
Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...TimS said:Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
As to trying to fill in the hole dug by the previous Government, the June borrowing figures were pretty bad and I can appreciate Reeves having some painful choices ahead.
The debt is one thing - the deficit however is another. I'd like to see the deficit being reduced but the days of simply cutting spending, cutting taxes and hoping for the best are over. There's plenty of scope for tax raising which isn't necessarily personal tax - Land Value Taxation for example. There is a recognition the sustainability of public services is paramount and if that means we all pay more to maintain those services, so be it.
That's the sea change from the last 40 years of propaganda claiming public services are wasteful and inefficient and there was big scope for cuts. There are some areas, defence for one, where I'm certain we aren't getting value for our £66 billion.
The elephant in the room remains adult social care (as well as care for vulnerable children). The Conservatives completely failed to come up with any kind of solution and left often well-run local authorities to either face bankruptcy or make savage cuts to other services. Whether the Tories were too frightened, too stupid or just too weak to come up with anything after more than a decade I don't know but all three work for me.
The solution won't be pretty - it will require all of us (I suspect) to make much greater provision for our later life than hitherto and that will grate with a consumption-based "I want it now" economic culture but it's the only way. Earlier generations funded their later years from property asset appreciation - that won't be available for many in the future and especially if we build more and get the supply/demand side of the housing equation under control.
I'd also bore you all a bit further and throw in the obligatory comment about carers by which I mean family-based care. The provision of care within the family should be the objective and the ideal but just as those who need the care need help so do those who provide it. Caring for older (or younger) relatives should be viewed as a valued and valuable activity.3 -
"Occupied" - love itStuartinromford said:
Besides, the space to the left of Labour has now been largely occupied by the greens. (Though it will be interesting to see how the urban Labour-facing Green vs. rural Conservative-facing Green dynamic plays out).FF43 said:
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/28/lib-dems-plan-to-finish-the-job-in-tory-heartlands-says-ed-davey
.
Interestingly different perspectives.
For some cancelling building on the Stonehenge site and the East London River Crossing is "but they won't invest". For me it's cancelling a few billions of Conservative Hail Mary Pork Barrel, with an opportunity to think about it and invest more wisely.
Enormous road schemes are not often well designed, and often deliver relatively poor returns. So thought is needed.
Good morning everyone.
0 -
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..2 -
All of the people that BoZo expelled know this to be true. The ones that are left, not so much.tyson said:The Tories used to be a pro business, fiscally responsible, pro European outward looking party. That party is dead.
Corbyn's unpopularity seduced the Tory right in thinking the public were on board with their extreme view of Brexit.
Brexit killed the Tory party.
0 -
Well, that's one view and one from the outside certainly and we need no lessons in economic probity from the Conservatives after the last 14 years.MisterBedfordshire said:
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
To an extent, the Orange Book was already on the way out before 2010 - the Coalition had only been possible because of the brief convergence between the Orange Bookers and Cameron's "liberal conservative" ideas. That didn't last long in government and as soon as the Tories got fixated on Europe the parties quickly diverged.
The LD manifesto on the economic side was one of the areas where I struggled with what the Party was saying, I don't think "free personal care" is a starter much though I'd like it. An extra £27 billion of public spending isn't that much given inflation and while I'd have preferred a commitment to a real term freeze on public spending, that probably isn't possible currently but we have to reduce the deficit.
Let's be fair - no Party (even Reform) had any coherent ideas on how to get the public finances back under control. I would be looking to set annual targets for borrowing with a view to getting the finances back to neutral in one Parliament and then build surpluses through following Parliaments but that's much easier said than done.1 -
I was about to post the same and for two reasons:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and sillyHYUFD said:
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%Benpointer said:
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously
1 Tory
0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically)
1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote)
A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.1 -
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?Tweedledee said:
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
I'm guessing no.0 -
In a forced choice between Torpids and torpor I'd strenuously recommend the latter.Tweedledee said:
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.0 -
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.BartholomewRoberts said:
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.2 -
Not sure they're fussed as long as they beat the House.Flatlander said:
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?Tweedledee said:
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
I'm guessing no.0 -
How much credence can we lend to a Venezuelan exit poll ?
(Probably every bit as much as the declared result, IMO.)
Edison research commissioned an exit poll in Venezuela that, at 6pm, gives Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition leader, 64% to Maduro's 31%. source below
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/18177254811790911961 -
Good post. Some people don't seem to realise that The Last Supper is simply the imagining of an artist of an event that in all likelihood never took place. Whether it has religeous significance is purely in the eye of the beholder. It has been parodied more than almost any other so called religious painting so this was nothing special.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.Nigelb said:FPT
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'.tlg86 said:
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.StillWaters said:
This is the still that has upset peopleJosiasJessop said:
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?Nigelb said:
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.BartholomewRoberts said:
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.MisterBedfordshire said:Statement by the Iranian Government.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
Je Suis Paris.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C97WzsCJInz
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion.
Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
As for the Iranians objecting; All depictions of Mohammed are forbidden as are depictions of all religeous figures. Indeed in the more religeous parts all works of art except script from the Koran are forbidden so taking lectures from them on artistic integrity is suely intended as a joke0 -
You might be right.Tweedledee said:
Not sure they're fussed as long as they beat the House.Flatlander said:
Would Oriel vote for the extra competition from Oik College, Headington?Tweedledee said:
You underestimate Oxford's thirst for rowing success. Does Torpids mean nothing to you?SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Brookes has almost as many students as Oxford (well two-thirds of the enrolment). It also focuses on very different subjects and, while it has a good reputation in many of them particularly in terms of graduate prospects, the entry requirements are quite substantially lower.Tweedledee said:
Oxford aren't stupid. They will subsume Brookes (many present colleges started life as indies) while the obscure grocer in charge of Cambridge sits wondering why Anglia Ruskin don't return his callsDecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
This isn't absorbing a satellite college and isn't going to happen.
I'm guessing no.
I recall a few songs on this matter.1 -
That makes perfect sense. From now on, this will be the canonical truth.Lennon said:
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A1 -
Did Marvel cast Downey as Dr Doom because they couldn't afford him in a full role ?
Hs character is likely to spend most of the movie masked...0 -
That Oxford is a complete dump?DecrepiterJohnL said:
That makes perfect sense. From now on, this will be the canonical truth.Lennon said:
I always assumed that given both Richard Curtis and Atkinson were at Oxford the joke was originally written the other way around ('Cambridge is a complete dump') - but Fry being the good Cambridge fellow he was ad libbed the other way around.DecrepiterJohnL said:
Probably you are right, as the camera zooms in on Melchett so clearly a punchline is expected, but then look at Atkinson's reaction as he seemed lost for words for a moment. Anyway, the claim is in the YouTube comments.SirNorfolkPassmore said:
Fry was great as Melchett but that cannot possibly have been an ad lib - it was the punchline to Atkinson's set-up. It's a good joke but very obviously written, not improvised.DecrepiterJohnL said:Forget Oxford, it is Oxford Brookes that is GB Rowing’s new talent factory
Every member of the Team GB men’s four and half the men’s eight at the Paris Olympics are Brookes alumni
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/olympics/2024/07/28/oxford-brookes-is-gb-rowings-new-talent-factory/ (£££)
As General Melchett reminds us, in what was said to be an ad lib by Cambridge alumnus Stephen Fry (20-second video):-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKuHYO9TM5A
Yeah, go along with that.1 -
That’s not austerity just good housekeepingTheScreamingEagles said:Paging all Labour supporters.
I've been telling you for fourteen years that austerity wasn't a choice, you owe David Cameron and George Osborne et al an apology.
Rachel Reeves will promise to sell off empty public buildings and slash government spending on consultants to balance the books, as she accuses the Conservatives of “running away” from difficult economic decisions and wrecking the nation’s finances.
In her first major speech as chancellor, Reeves will identify a £20 billion black hole in government spending on Monday as she seeks to pin the blame for future tax rises on Tory profligacy.
Echoing the arguments made by George Osborne for austerity after the Conservatives won power in 2010, Reeves will warn government departments and quangos of a cost-cutting drive across Whitehall after the Conservatives over-spent this year’s budgets by billions of pounds. The chancellor will launch the Office of Value for Money, a government agency to combat waste, as she warns of tighter spending.
As part of an immediate squeeze, she will accelerate the sell-off of empty public buildings and reduce the use of external consultants, a move expected to save £500 million.
The sale of surplus public property — a money-raising policy championed by Osborne — has generated £3 billion for the exchequer since 2010. Government reliance on consultants dramatically increased after Brexit and during the pandemic. Since the last election, Deloitte has won contracts worth £1.9 billion while its rivals, KPMG, EY and PwC, have earned £1.3 billion, £1.03 billion and £1 billion respectively.
https://www.thetimes.com/uk/politics/article/r
achel-reeves-to-slash-spending-and-sell-off-
empty-buildings-7hmqk5qlc
0 -
The Tories will just have to wait until Labour have been in power for so long they start annoying various groups, lol!1
-
"Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them"FF43 said:
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.HYUFD said:
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were LeaversFF43 said:
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/28/lib-dems-plan-to-finish-the-job-in-tory-heartlands-says-ed-davey
Which of the potential leaders makes that most likely?0 -
Interesting.
The TP53 gene has been know about for over four decades, and its mutations are involved in a huge number of cancers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P53
Until now, there's been no therapeutic approach to targeting it in cancer.
p53 protein abundance is a therapeutic window across TP53 mutant cancers and is targetable with proximity inducing small molecules
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.07.27.605429v1
TP53 mutant cancers are associated with approximately half of cancer deaths. The most common mechanism of p53 inactivation involves missense mutations. Such mutations in TP53 result in a robust upregulation of the p53 protein. Here, we demonstrate an induced proximity approach to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This approach uses the increased abundance of p53 protein in TP53 mutant cancer cells to concentrate toxic molecules in these cells. We demonstrate the first generalizable strategy using a small molecule to selectively kill TP53 mutant cells. This molecule binds the Y220C mutant of p53 and concentrates a PLK1 inhibitor in cells harboring TP53 Y220C mutations. Together, these data demonstrate that the abundance of p53 protein provides a therapeutic window for TP53 missense mutant cancers that can be translated into a cell death signal using proximity-inducing small molecules...
This is preclinical research, but looks very promising as an approach for drug development.3 -
Not all of them no but the majority of those Reform voters would have voted for Boris in 2019, even in Guildford and even if they had said before they were going LD this time. Most of them would have voted Leave in 2016 as well, Guildford as a whole voted Remain though so it was Remainers who won it for the LDskjh said:
I was about to post the same and for two reasons:Big_G_NorthWales said:
Please stop combining conservative and reform votes - it is wholly misleading and sillyHYUFD said:
Given just 12% voted LD on 4th July and 24% voted Tory and 14% even voted Reform highly unlikely. Combined the Tories and Reform on 38% were even higher than Labour on 33%Benpointer said:
In 30 years time we'll be bemoaning the unbreakable Labour - LibDem two-party system (the LDs having quietly dropped their PR policy for... reasons).TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
a) if you are going to combine Tory and Reform, why not combine Lab, LD and Green? It would be daft but consistent.
b) When knocking up for the LDs in Guildford on election day we are obviously only knocking up our confirmed voters. My personal results from several hundred houses knocked on were:
A very large number of LDs obviously
1 Tory
0 Labour (although several made the point that they were voting LD tactically)
1 not voting (whom I almost convinced to vote)
A dozen or so Reform
Others reported the same trend re confirmed LDs voting Reform
These Reform voters had said they were going to vote LD. There were lots of them swayed by the Reform message. I am assuming these are disaffected voters, but if the LDs were losing them to Reform, how many would Labour have had in that boat as well as it is not like there is much overlap between LD and Reform.
So to claim Reform voters can be put in the same pile as Tories is wrong.0 -
@petebuttigieg: “If you’re talking about military tribunals for political opponents, you have no business talking about freedom. If you’re into banning books, you have no business letting a word like liberty escape your lips.”
https://x.com/InsideWithPsaki/status/18176005987258327150 -
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour PartyMisterBedfordshire said:
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?0 -
Sounds a hell of a lot more plausible than the official results.Nigelb said:How much credence can we lend to a Venezuelan exit poll ?
(Probably every bit as much as the declared result, IMO.)
Edison research commissioned an exit poll in Venezuela that, at 6pm, gives Edmundo Gonzalez, the opposition leader, 64% to Maduro's 31%. source below
https://x.com/anneapplebaum/status/1817725481179091196
Just as the Belarusian exit poll giving Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya two thirds of the vote was a hell of a lot more plausible than the one giving that fat old loser Lukashenko an eight to one win.1 -
Mm. And yet the Tories treated carers abominably. It's one thing to earn a little over the regulation limit, especially if this is a weekly thing and disappears over the month/year, but quite another to have to pay a marginal tax rate of 8190%.stodge said:
Yes, there will inevitably be a fall off in political interest after a significant event - there always is. How long the ennui will last remains to be seen - I suspect there's more goodwill for the new Government than you and the other Conservative supporters might think especially if we see improving economic news.squareroot2 said:
But as % not that
Wait until ms Reeves starts bleeding them dry...TimS said:Something I’ve noticed, and it’s probably helpful for the Tories: there is less interest in politics out there than since at least the Brexit vote.
It’s palpable. People have breathed out, sat back in their sofas and decided that for the next year at least they’re going to think about other things.
As to trying to fill in the hole dug by the previous Government, the June borrowing figures were pretty bad and I can appreciate Reeves having some painful choices ahead.
The debt is one thing - the deficit however is another. I'd like to see the deficit being reduced but the days of simply cutting spending, cutting taxes and hoping for the best are over. There's plenty of scope for tax raising which isn't necessarily personal tax - Land Value Taxation for example. There is a recognition the sustainability of public services is paramount and if that means we all pay more to maintain those services, so be it.
That's the sea change from the last 40 years of propaganda claiming public services are wasteful and inefficient and there was big scope for cuts. There are some areas, defence for one, where I'm certain we aren't getting value for our £66 billion.
The elephant in the room remains adult social care (as well as care for vulnerable children). The Conservatives completely failed to come up with any kind of solution and left often well-run local authorities to either face bankruptcy or make savage cuts to other services. Whether the Tories were too frightened, too stupid or just too weak to come up with anything after more than a decade I don't know but all three work for me.
The solution won't be pretty - it will require all of us (I suspect) to make much greater provision for our later life than hitherto and that will grate with a consumption-based "I want it now" economic culture but it's the only way. Earlier generations funded their later years from property asset appreciation - that won't be available for many in the future and especially if we build more and get the supply/demand side of the housing equation under control.
I'd also bore you all a bit further and throw in the obligatory comment about carers by which I mean family-based care. The provision of care within the family should be the objective and the ideal but just as those who need the care need help so do those who provide it. Caring for older (or younger) relatives should be viewed as a valued and valuable activity.
I don't blame those of us on 50-100K a year for being annoyed about step changes, but this is something else again.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/article/2024/jul/28/dwp-unpaid-carers-told-to-repay-benefits-allowance2 -
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.stodge said:
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.BartholomewRoberts said:
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.1 -
When you order your Olympic opening ceremony from Temu
https://x.com/PaulRodgers0904/status/18174775626096148590 -
My mistake (mainly as I join at Mere if I am going West). Still needs to be done though.MisterBedfordshire said:
No it hasn't. As things stand building the Stonehenge bypass would just move the queue 10 miles west to the end of the Wylye Bypass.turbotubbs said:
A303 has been duelled for the rest of its route already (or soon will be completed).eek said:
The problem with removing those pinch points is that it will simply reveal another issue further on...Sandpit said:
The Brynglas Tunnels were a major bottleneck from the day the new Severn Bridge opened in the ‘90s, and their replacement or bypass really should have been thought about at the same time.ydoethur said:
Well, this is the point, isn't it? Most governments in this country at least don't seem to grasp the fundamental difference between paying money on things that will then make money later and paying money to keep things going.Benpointer said:Aargh!
I confess to severe disappointment that Labour are seemingly going to 'pause' infrastructure projects like the A303 Stonehenge and A27 Arundel bypasses; I can't see how that's going to help the economy grow.
Would much rather see higher taxes on the wealthy (myself included).
Still, a focus on balancing the books is to be applauded, and not quite in line with the "IMF bail-out by 2027" line being punted by Labour critics on here.
So, for example, HS2 to Euston, Leeds and Manchester will pay for itself six times over. HS2 from Old Oak Common to Crewe will make a loss. But the latter is a headline spending cut so is GOOD!
A new road around Newport would create a huge amount of wealth in South Wales by unclogging that key artery from Newport to Cardiff and allowing people and goods to be transported quickly and reliably. Lots of lovely tax revenue. But - it needs money so BAAD!
I'm not sure whether to blame Thatcher/Major with their tight monetary policies and suspicion of government intervention, or Brown with his stupid decision to call all his spending 'investment' even though most of his non-PFI stuff was current account spending.
The A303 past Stonehenge has been a massive bottleneck for even longer, especially in the summer evenings. I remember being in the queue for what felt like hours as a kid in the ‘80s. Someone needs to decide to either start digging the tunnel or dual the existing road, then JFDI.
So much of the national infrastructure can be improved by eliminating a small number of these transport pinch points.
I actually heard a valid argument for HS3 going to Wales a couple of weeks ago - the current rail tunnels are so old that the next set of maintenance will take years/ a decade to complete. So the plan would be:
1) build new tunnel to HS spec,
2) route trains into new tunnel
3) refurbish old tunnel
4) build new line
The reason for 3/4 is that the expensive bit is the new tunnel everything else is cheap compared to that tunnel..
Only improvement since 1990 is the under construction 2 mile link between Sparkford and Ilchester bypasses (without building the Ilchester bypass flyover)
First thing Bliar did in 1997 was can Ilminster to Honiton dualling which was ready to start with all approvals.0 -
Also quality falls, often: in teaching for instance, with an unfamiliar class/teacher/course progress.BartholomewRoberts said:
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.stodge said:
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.BartholomewRoberts said:
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.2 -
To win a majority they need to win back Remainers who voted for Cameron and Conservative in 2019 to keep Corbyn out, yes.FF43 said:
Yeah but you're missing the crucial point. To win back power the Conservatives need those Remainers to vote for them. Leavers are a diminishing bunch. Most people now correctly realise Brexit was a mistake, Leavers are literally dying off and most of those remaining as it were are perfectly OK with Reform.HYUFD said:
The vast majority of LD gains from the Tories on 4th July were in Tory Remain seats. Yet the majority of those who still voted Tory on 4th July were LeaversFF43 said:
There are some hints in this interview with Ed Davey that the Lib Dems will be mostly after the Tory vote. Davey is inclined to Orange Book anyway, but it makes sense electorally and Davey is in an unchallenged position in his party as far as I know.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/28/lib-dems-plan-to-finish-the-job-in-tory-heartlands-says-ed-davey
However even on 4th July 37% of Leavers still voted Tory compared to just 16% of Remainers who still voted Tory. So if the Tories lose their remaining Leave voters to Reform as well as those Leavers who have already gone to Farage, Farage would end up LOTO
https://yougov.co.uk/politics/articles/49978-how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-general-election0 -
It varies from sector to sector and what may be true of teaching/education isn't necessarily true in terms of legal work, countryside management or finance. Yes, there are certain senior positions (Section 151 Officer) for example which have to be occupied whether by a permanent or interim member of staff but it's not wholly the case and roles do tend to sit vacant until they are "deleted" (thus incurring a saving on the salary budget even though no one has been paid for months).BartholomewRoberts said:
In many roles its not permitted to lack a staff member or have someone else pick up the slack, having 20% vacancies doesn't mean 80% of the staff do 100% of the work, it means that 20% of the staff are filled by agency workers, at about 150%-200% of the cost it would be otherwise.stodge said:
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.BartholomewRoberts said:
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
My nan was a teacher and semi-retired in the 80s when my grandad got cancer and she stepped into agency work instead which paid considerably better per day than she'd get as a permanent employee.
Which is fine for odd days that need to be covered but when agency are getting used on an effectively permanent basis that's insanely unproductive.0 -
The vast majority of 'religious' art in England and Wales (not sure about Scotland), which of course meant most art at the time, was destroyed during the Reformation, and much of what was left during the Commonwealth.Roger said:
Good post. Some people don't seem to realise that The Last Supper is simply the imagining of an artist of an event that in all likelihood never took place. Whether it has religeous significance is purely in the eye of the beholder. It has been parodied more than almost any other so called religious painting so this was nothing special.Stark_Dawning said:
Quite right. Since when did religious groups take ownership of works of art and what can be done with them? Who decides what works of art are now off limits to parody, mockery or criticism? If Leonardo himself had decided to 'desecrate' 'The Last Supper' in some way would he be guilty of something? All obvious balderdash. Moreover, when criticized for their own over-sensitivity, Muslims can now turn round and say, 'Well, you "enlightened" westerners threw a hissy fit when a painting was imitated at the Olympics. You're just as sensitive as us.' Completely counter-productive.Nigelb said:FPT
You're assuming it was intended as a mockery of Christianity, or 'having a pop'.tlg86 said:
And given the location, that criticism is fairer than normal. Arguably, there was a case for showing the Charlie Hebdo cartoons - I wouldn’t, but it would have been understandable - but having a pop at Christianity seemed completely unnecessary.StillWaters said:
This is the still that has upset peopleJosiasJessop said:
I saw that section live, and saw zero connection with the Last Supper. Can someone explain the link?Nigelb said:
I think rather (since many folk will at least mildly disapprove of the parody), it’s that we should avoid any move in the direction of reacting as Iran does.BartholomewRoberts said:
If the Mullahs are upset France must have done something right.MisterBedfordshire said:Statement by the Iranian Government.
"The insulting representation of Jesus Christ in Paris yesterday was completely offensive and crossed all red lines.
France, a country with a major history of Christianity, must be ashamed of itself, and I implore our Christian people all over the world to speak out against this act. We resolutely condemn this."
Je Suis Paris.
The reaction of some on the right is a step in that direction.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C97WzsCJInz
When I first saw it (without the comparator) I definitely thought of the last supper motif
It’s not hugely offensive in my view, but it is tired and has been done so many times. But the issue is more equality of treatment - the perception is that it is fine to mock Christians but not others
It was an appropriation of Leonardo's image - which as noted, has been done a thousand times before - without anyone assuming mockery.
Were Warhol's prints a mockery ?
Islam is, in the views of many of us, currently (though not always the case historically) over sensitive to the depiction of its prophet.
Christianity doesn't have the Islamic prescription on iconography - unless you're of the Cromwell tendency. And western society professes itself happy to accommodate satire on religion.
Is that something you want to change ?
If France should be apologising for anything, it's for putting on a not very good opening ceremony. But that's hardly something to be outraged over.
As for the Iranians objecting; All depictions of Mohammed are forbidden as are depictions of all religeous figures. Indeed in the more religeous parts all works of art except script from the Koran are forbidden so taking lectures from them on artistic integrity is suely intended as a joke
Which doesn't suggest that Christians, especially Protestants, are particularly sensitive about preserving art.
0 -
There's a lot in that. When John Prescott was Deputy PM, his office required all Council services to be online (to various extents).stodge said:
That's a very different issue but worth discussing.BartholomewRoberts said:
I suspect spending on agency workers is a bigger issue than strikes.stodge said:
Are there a lot of strikes in the public sector?Northern_Al said:
Not having any strikes would be helpful in improving public sector productivity.another_richard said:
The fundamental issue isn't the size of public sector pay increases but rather the relationship of public sector pay increases and public sector productivity increases.eek said:
Don't forget 50% of that comes straight back to the government in tax..Big_G_NorthWales said:Good morning
The analysis in the thread header is spot on and time for the conservatives to send Braverman and others to Reform
On the economy not sure how Labour can complain about a 20 billion deficit when they are about to commit to an inflationary settlement in the public sector costing 10 billion or more plus plans to raise the national living wage by £2 per hour
I expect the prospect of interest rate reduction are on a knife because of these announcements alone
Also public sector workers have had below inflation increases for 10+ years and these pay increases are because the Government has decided to listen to the independent panels rather than ignoring them - if the Tory party had listened to them last year the pay increase (which has to compensate for historic below inflation pay increases) would not be so high..
Recruitment and retention in the public sector has always been difficult especially in specialist areas and especially in the south and south east. I reckon most councils in the south east are carrying 15-20% vacancies currently - that means 80-85% of staff doing 100% of the work (no overtime) and that's why the productivity levels are so poor.
The establishments are set up on a minimum resource requirement to perform the range of Services to a minimum standard but with so many vacancies it becomes increasingly difficult to meet that.
Recruiting Agency staff is often quick and easy (ditto for Consultants, Interims or whatever you want to call them) and it fills a gap or gets the job done albeit at a cost.
The problem is the business of local councils is so broad and diverse it naturally encompasses areas where there is very little comparable private sector presence as well as the same professional specialisms every other business has - finance, property, legal, HR, procurement. Those Services can and often are externalised to a provider such as Capita but that doesn't reduce the spend - apart from the management fee, there's the Client function required to ensure the Contractor is doing what they promised in the Contract.
At the time I was overseeing a Council website. The list of Council Delivered Services had approximately 800 services in it, which is a measure of the diversity, and all had to be accounted for.
Do you want such services, or have them externalised / privatised and the Council supervising - which does not really lessen the amount of institutional knowledge required because as soon as that is lessened they lose the skillset to regulate, and the service is difficult to hold to account.
Where do you draw the line? Do we want a service to deal with rats and swarms of bees? Dog wardens? Meals on wheels? A nice local park? A town museum? Rights of Way officers? An accessibility officer? People to clean the beach? An ability to deal with ASB or noise? The white lines on our roads repainted? Panic buttons for supported housing?
At present in many or most places, some of the above are so under resourced so as to be ineffective, or have simply vanished with resource starvation.
It all needs thinking about.
3 -
Tuition fees. And not to so much what was done as the way it was done.HYUFD said:
Clegg's problem in 2015 was Cameron was already offering Orange Book Liberalism in all but name anyway, while the social democrats who had voted for his party before defected to Ed Miliband's Labour PartyMisterBedfordshire said:
Possibly the 2015 election was disastrous in that it destroyed Orange Book Liberalism and left a party barely distinguishable from SKS Labour.TheScreamingEagles said:
One Nationers should take over the Lib Dems.FF43 said:They need to win back the headbangers now happily installed in the home of headbangers; they need to win over those who fled to the sensible shores of Labour and Lib Dems; they need to stop their residual voters dying.
Should be easy.
Question to our Lib Dem members, how many in the voluntary party support the Orange Book policies now?0
