I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
Just googled Tony Gallagher (for it is he) and he is, as you probably know and now I do, one of the most completely unknown influential people in British right-wing politics. So him and Nigel Farage, and perhaps Kemi makes the set.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
He'll meddle and micro-manage it into a mess that'll go downhill quickly imho.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Keep trying, nice sqirrel. No invoice required
Is it a Haitian squirrel, though? Asking for the neighbourhood cats....
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
"If" doing quite a bit there. Can't see it happening, but we'll see,
Fiscal drag is built in until 2027 - and this time next year it's highly likely the state pension will hit the magic £12,570 figure...
Yes, but they are likely to adjust the nil rate band accordingly, rather than make a couple of million pensioners work out if they owe £50.66 or similar, I would guess.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
I can see why that is the value that has to be declared but it is not the real value of the gift. A student revising on their own (maybe with a tutor or family) simply can't make £20k use of it.
Bollox, an excuse to have a free penthouse. If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
MexicanPete's life is his own. Not yours. Not mine. He should do what he wants not what anyone else wants him too. I don't especially want him to leave but if he does, so what ?
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
Just googled Tony Gallagher (for it is he) and he is, as you probably know and now I do, one of the most completely unknown influential people in British right-wing politics. So him and Nigel Farage, and perhaps Kemi makes the set.
IKR?
I remember when "the editor of the Times" was a really important person. And anyone interested in politics would know his/her name
Now a PB geek will know the name of the Speccie editor, and probably the Guardian, and just possibly the Mail? Not the Times
Not quite sure why that is. Possibly because the Times is now predictably and quite boringly centrist, and also because it is locked behind that rigid paywall, so it is much less visible
Another bad day for Starmer. Quite a lot of them now. And all in a row
So you’re laying Labour for the next election or are you all mouth?
I’m just thoroughly enjoying giving Labour a kicking because
1. It’s fun and it makes a change 2. They are total hypocrites and they deserve it 3. I am beginning to suspect Starmer is - genuinely - a massive liar not just a grifter
You voted for him, this is on you, I will remind you of this regularly.
Which is fair. But you can't really criticise a man for having.... hope
I voted Labour too. I don't regret it.....yet. I am having Buyers remorse though.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
Convicted beater of his pregnant partner and he also admitted in The Spectator the reason the one thing stopping him becoming a teacher was "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids."
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
Just googled Tony Gallagher (for it is he) and he is, as you probably know and now I do, one of the most completely unknown influential people in British right-wing politics. So him and Nigel Farage, and perhaps Kemi makes the set.
IKR?
I remember when "the editor of the Times" was a really important person. And anyone interested in politics would know his/her name
Now a PB geek will know the name of the Speccie editor, and probably the Guardian, and just possibly the Mail? Not the Times
Not quite sure why that is. Possibly because the Times is now predictably and quite boringly centrist, and also because it is locked behind that rigid paywall, so it is much less visible
"Prime Minster, sir. A gentleman from The Times and some men from the press to see you, sir."
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
That would make the Triple Lock even more unsustainable.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Except that that is a single thread within a wider discourse. We've seen similar analyses before - that topics that upset a poster are magnified in their mind to being the whole conversation.
Governments get opposed. I get that it is harder for Labour supporters - they spend more time as the "moral opposition" - but it is how it rolls.
Yeah. WillGlen is the new Scott for the next few years. Life goes on.
It does although we could all do without the ungallant childish vitriol like calling Reeves Rosa Klebb
Just checking, and I know it’s so unlikely, but did you ever refer to Liz Truss as the Lettuce, or mock Sunak’s size, or give names to Suella or any of the last Tory gov?
I’m sure you would heartily agree that we don’t want hypocrites posting here.
F*** me! You've already got rid of me, now you are threatening Anabob with your next bullet.
Huzzah for an anti- faithful-Conservative free PB.
I'm not going anywhere. Mostly, I just find the same five bores droning on about Donkeygate or whatever it's called nowadays night after night boring, I suspect it will run out of stream soon as even those devoted monomaniacs will reach vinegar strokes at some stage soon.
In the YouGov poll in the header, 2% identified this as an issue. TWO PERCENT. Those views must not go unheeded.
Thankfully there is no danger of that, here on PB. The key issue is discussed, in great depth and detail every other posts – by a handpicked half-dozen on supreme experts. PB is truly the tool of the people, a beacon of democracy shining a light for the forgotten 2%.
It's those two percent that make all the noise. And write the news. So, yes, they matter
And this works both ways, naturally
They make the noise and write something (not really news in this case).
Do they matter? Well, much less than they once did.
I'd love someone to ask the hacks what they got on expenses and 'in kind' last year.
Would be a good laugh reading that.
Fucksake this argument is so lame. Hacks don't run the country, and they don't run the country via election campaigns when they promise to "clean up politics" and act in "service" to the nation
They are the fourth estate, a pillar of a functioning democracy. They should presumably be beyond influence and therefore shouldn't accept a pint in the Dog & Duck nor invitations to posh dinners and sporting events. I would be shocked – shocked I tell you – if any did.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
They will need more tax inspectors....If fiscal drag continues then a single pensioner on a full modern state pension and no other income (currently about 11.5k, going up to about 12k) will, in a couple of years, be liable to IT.
At that point they will be both paying IT on the state pension AND qualify for the Pension credit (and other perks that follow on like no council tax) that the million or so proud old people don't claim.
Making IT kick it at the point where you are simply penurious is ludicrous.
Triple lock the personal tax allowance to the full state pension. It's what I would do.
That would make the Triple Lock even more unsustainable.
....As the Minister withdrew, Hermann the Irascible, who was also nicknamed the Wise, gave a profound chuckle.
"There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream," he quoted, "but I'm not sure," he added, "that it's not the best way."
Right, I need to go do some work! I have to write a letter claiming £0 from the government's Innovate UK funding body. I initially told them I would be claiming £0, but now the project is over, I have to claim my £0 and they won't pay anyone else until I do so.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
MexicanPete's life is his own. Not yours. Not mine. He should do what he wants not what anyone else wants him too. I don't especially want him to leave but if he does, so what ?
Well of course, I was simply expressing my hope that he will stay. Not that I can do anything about it either way.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
My Highgate leftwing friend guiltily admitted to me the other day that he loves the Spectator podcasts! And I believe Roger listens to them, too - given that he was complaining about one that he heard, recently
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
The Observer is such a rip roaring success it is practically being given away to the Tortoise.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
Convicted beater of his pregnant partner and he also admitted in The Spectator the reason the one thing stopping him becoming a teacher was "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids."
This is amazing. A German man who self-IDs as a woman might avoid a charge of exposing his penis, as he is legally a woman. In Germany only a man can be convicted of exposing his penis. QED the crime could not happen."
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
The Observer is such a rip roaring success it is practically being given away to the Tortoise.
The Spectator clearly has been a big success.
Yes, it is successful BECAUSE it manages to be highminded/serious but also funny and irreverent - at the same time, sometimes on subsequent pages (also it does unepxected things, and is good at arts etc)
The po-faced left seems to have lost the ability to be amusing and cleverly frivolous, hence the decline of the Observer
ALSO also the times have simply changed. The idea of a big long newspaper that gives you "all the news" seems a bit daft to modern minds. You wouldn't invent a newspaper now if the concept wasn't already extant
However, a collection of strong, well-written opinions on different matters, art, sports, travel, politics? Yes, that makes much more sense. People still want to hear witty or wise opinions/experiences, hence the success of Substack (and the Spec)
There is a better future for mags like the Spec than 90% of papers
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
Convicted beater of his pregnant partner and he also admitted in The Spectator the reason the one thing stopping him becoming a teacher was "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids."
And has talked approvingly about the murder or maiming of cyclists using piano wire on cycle paths. Wrong'un.
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Your farewell here seems to be on a par with Elton John's fairwell tour.
Sorry Taz, just for you I'm gone, I'm dust. Apologies for the delay.
Not for me. I never had a problem with you or a crossed word with you although we discussed several issues here.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
This is amazing. A German man who self-IDs as a woman might avoid a charge of exposing his penis, as he is legally a woman. In Germany only a man can be convicted of exposing his penis. QED the crime could not happen."
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
What was their reaction to The Daily Sport?
I wasn't reading serious academic journals - taking a break from all that.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Our staff room, back when it had papers*, stocked the Guardian, the Times and the FT, the THE and the Economist as mags, plus Nursing Times, bmj and Lancet. Make of that what you will.
*the subscriptions were culled at some point during Covid, I think, now we get a few university publications, but sometimes still see fairly old copies of THE or Nursing Times, which I assume someone simply donates when done with them
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
You need to hide it inside a porno mag.
Purely on the basis of its name, my favourite porno mag was "Cockade"...
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Our staff room, back when it had papers*, stocked the Guardian, the Times and the FT, the THE and the Economist as mags, plus Nursing Times, bmj and Lancet. Make of that what you will.
*the subscriptions were culled at some point during Covid, I think, now we get a few university publications, but sometimes still see fairly old copies of THE or Nursing Times, which I assume someone simply donates when done with them
You still have a staff room? Luxury. The old senior common room was opened up to all years ago here.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Our staff room, back when it had papers*, stocked the Guardian, the Times and the FT, the THE and the Economist as mags, plus Nursing Times, bmj and Lancet. Make of that what you will.
*the subscriptions were culled at some point during Covid, I think, now we get a few university publications, but sometimes still see fairly old copies of THE or Nursing Times, which I assume someone simply donates when done with them
I donated all my papers to the staff room table. I wonder how they dealt with the Specie?
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
If your employer gave you the same gift, you’d have to pay income tax on the value of the gift.
Arguing in one state New York that it’s his constitutional right to be on the ballot and at the same time in Wisconsin arguing it’s his constitutional right to be off the ballot .
Acting in bad faith was though rewarded in North Carolina where the corrupt Trump enabling State Supreme Court caused a two week delay to absentee ballots going out by agreeing to his demands .
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
Convicted beater of his pregnant partner and he also admitted in The Spectator the reason the one thing stopping him becoming a teacher was "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids."
I think this polling is fairly accurate and does tell a story of a poor start by Starmer and labour
The two issues to really cut through are the WFA (as we will see today as the unions debate their motion to reinstate it) and the freebies
You cannot get a worse optic then taking away pensioners WFA and the largesse of clothes, glasses, holidays, football and concert tickets showered by donors on the top labour team
I genuinely think this will not go away over the period of this parliament. but of course the next GE is 5 years away so anything could happen by then
I would just gently suggest to @Roger and @Anabobazina that trying to close down discussion on this forum because they are clearly dismayed is simply silly and maybe a 'cup of tea and a rich tea biscuit' would help
No one is closing down discussion. The complaint is posters like William Glenn promoting a narrative that has been dreamed up by the Daily Telegraph and claiming it as fact although it is not party policy and never will be, or Alanbrooke simply making a statement that "Reeves is c***" devalues the discourse.
The answer of course is for Anabob, Roger and myself to vacate the premises, a journey many already seem to have silently trod before.
Here’s an exercise if you are bored today. Go through your posts in the Truss days and to the election, maybe do the same for your other hard done by posters, and just check that in no way have you typed out bollocks posts for either political point scoring or gain. Or even the three of you have not posted pointless posts that add nothing to the discourse.
If, when you have done this, you can honestly claim that you have done nothing but post interesting, non-biased, non-pointless nonsense then I for one will happily quit the site you can stay in your bubble.
Otherwise just shut the fick up and accept that PB is full of banter, argument, things you disagree with, people you disagree with and counter the arguments of you care so much or ignore the arguments of you don’t.
I don't believe I unnecessarily criticised Truss, as I recall I was greatly relieved that she managed the Queen's funeral arrangements rather than the embarrassment had Johnson done so, although you can spend as much time as you like proving me wrong. I spent plenty of hours deriding Johnson, but not with fake news with fact. Perhaps current discourse would be better served if some of those you are defending stuck to the same rules.
You have asked me to leave the site, otherwise you believe you can't stay. The posters who are making their rabid assertions aren't people I would choose to rub shoulders in reality, so perhaps I should do as you suggest and "stf up" although I believe unless you are really dim you realise you are the one advocating for a bubble of like-minded posters blowing smoke up each other's arses.
It's a shame a number of remaining posters aren't as bright as they seem to think they are.
Toodle pip.
Very strange take on what I wrote. I’m all for a plurality of views here and not the one calling for other people to leave but suggesting that those who do should check their own past behaviour.
We know both sides will post fake or dodgy news in defence of their side - sometimes seriously and sometimes trolling. It’s all part of the rich tapestry here and clearly you can tell what’s real and not.
I didn’t ask you to leave otherwise I can’t stay - I was making an offer that if you cannot find anything you and your fellow posters you mentioned that lowers the discourse then I will happily leave - as in I have seen plenty of shit turned out in your names so I’m pretty safe knowing I won’t need to leave.
But there does seem to be a bit of a meltdown by left posters - I get it, you’ve had years of sniping from the sidelines thinking your team would do it better and then in super quick truss time your team have been shown to be a bit shit. It’s like fancying some girl for ages, finally getting her back to yours, getting naked and finding she’s got a cock.
So don’t huff off just argue against our fake news, lies, stupidity and enjoy the superior glow.
Before I go, I have to respond to your bollocks,
The Starmer Government have made an awful start. You can make as much of that as you wish. Not least because they have done nothing rather than something.
Surely you chaps have enough to be going on with that rather than equalising PPE contracts fast lanes with Mrs Starmer's dress. I don't believe Mrs Starmer should be gifted clothing, however trying to equate that with Jenrick taking £10k for his party for overruling planning decisions for Richard Desmond is rubbish.
As far as I can see you are the only source of the dress = PPE equation. I am happy to stick with comparison with Johnson's wallpaper, but it's not really about equations anyway. "Slightly less venal than Boris" is not what I am looking for in a PM.
I’d actually grade it as follows:
- Jenrick/Desmond - the worse - Then the personal gifts - The wallpaper not as bad (although spoke to character) because it was for a state building rather than personally - PPE was different > as far as I know there is evidence of bad judgement and associating with grifters rather than actual corruption
I really am off, but I can't allow that.
1. PPE (by a mile) 2. Desmond 3. Wallpapergate/Johnson's grocery deliveries/ Goonergate (a mile further back)
Do you believe that Tories actively used PPE to steal money? Or were they just desperately turning to anyone who said they could help? As Reeves also provided a list (that was bunkum).
I think some poor deals were struck, some have undoubtedly got away with murder, but I don't believe individual ministers profitted. If you have evidence of criminality perhaps report it to the authorities? I believe a new one will be along soon.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
I love The Spectator.
Some years ago, I was in the staff common room at the Maths department, at Southampton, waiting to see my supervisor.
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
Well, Speccie editors have in recent decades gone on to be The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Lawson) and Prime Minister (Boris)
You can't say that about any other journal
So it used to appoint rising stars and now it's appointed a political has been...
They also have Rod Liddell, eesh.
Pound shop Jeremy Clarkson. Plus also ofc previous editor of Today.
Convicted beater of his pregnant partner and he also admitted in The Spectator the reason the one thing stopping him becoming a teacher was "I could not remotely conceive of not trying to shag the kids."
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
If any of those loaned apartments/cash donations have been described less-than-accurately by the Labour pols involved (I am not accusing anyone, just hypothesising) then Ali now has tremendous leverage over them
He can say "well actually that apartment wasn't used for precisely the purpose depicted by Politician X" and then Politician X is finished
This kind of leverage is wrong and bad. It would be wrong in any government. And all from one man
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
If Gove could keep the eccentricity and quality of writing but engineer a return to very high quality, consistent and deep argumentation it could be worth reading as well as readable again. At the moment it is readable and entertaining but superficial beyond belief.
It may not be to your taste but it has gone from 40,000 subscribers to 120,000 (more than the sales of, say, The Observer) and from a value of £20m to £100m, under Fraser's editorship
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
It is very much to my taste, and I have read it on and off since 1971, including through some bad times. Remember when Mark Steyn was a regular columnist?
It is, as I say, readable and entertaining, which is two out of three. By contrast the New Statesman is unreadable, not entertaining and, like the Spectator, superficial.
This is not uncommon. Embracing clear principles and politics - a broad world view - in any deep sort of way, and interpreting the world in its light, and editorialising about it is hard at the moment, but never more needed.
The current circulation is an excellent achievement. But for now, those responsible for its editorial line could do with going back to basics and having a read of Burke, Aristotle, MacIntyre, Scruton, Hayek, Friedman, Iris Murdoch, Pope John Paul II and some more.
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
But for now, those responsible for its editorial line could do with going back to basics and having a read of Burke, Aristotle, MacIntyre, Scruton, Hayek, Friedman, Iris Murdoch, Pope John Paul II and some more.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It's not huge amounts of donated money though, is it? Lord Alli did not actually give Starmer a sackful of cash, which Starmer promptly gave back to settle the rent bill. Rather, it was use of a room (or a flat) which has subsequently had a purely notional value applied.
Revisiongate is Raynergate, not Barnard Castle.
Yeah revising in a £18m house isn't really worth £20k in any meaningful sense. Now if he invited 100 friends and they had a free poolside bar going all weekend it might be different, but if he just revised in a big room, whats the issue?
Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say.
Yes, that will be how the notional value is estimated for the declaration but there is no actual cost. Money has not changed hands. This is so trivial it would not surprise me if the actual scandal is who paid the daily Uber fares for the boy.
Just because it is notional, doesn't change the value.
That said I have a friend who owns a corporate entertainment venue. Occasionally he will let a charity hold an event there for free - usually on a Monday or a Tuesday when there is no much demand for corporate hire.
Costs him very little, but benefits the charity.
But what is the true value? The cost to him or the benefit to the recipient? Or neither?
But that doesn’t mean you should make it easier for them, by doubting the word of neutral parties who attest the threat to Trump is real. The Russian attack continues to do real damage, to this day, because the investigation into it led to such polarization. If I’m right about the Steele dossier (Ball of Thread version), some of that was by design, while some of it was the auspicious upside (from the perspective of Russia) of targeting a narcissist. But the result is the same: By targeting Trump, you can elicit the tribalism that damages the US, regardless of Iran’s (or Russia’s) other efforts. A great deal of the polarization in the US, a great deal of the conspiracism on the part of Trump supporters, and therefore a great deal of the extremism, stems from the response to the Russian attack and investigation.
Whether a (hostile) country backs Trump or wants revenge against him, the goal is the same: to end US hegemony and extend authoritarianism. There are public, rational reasons to believe that Iran really is targeting Trump. There are no good reasons to instead irrationally doubt those public attributions.
It's going back decades but IIRC 'Bullying-Manner' for Manningham-Buller and 'Shortly Floorcross' for Hartley Shawcross were both first in the Spectator. Possibly in the jurassic period when Bernard Levin (of blessed memory) wrote for it.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
If any of those loaned apartments/cash donations have been described less-than-accurately by the Labour pols involved (I am not accusing anyone, just hypothesising) then Ali now has tremendous leverage over them
He can say "well actually that apartment wasn't used for precisely the purpose depicted by Politician X" and then Politician X is finished
This kind of leverage is wrong and bad. It would be wrong in any government. And all from one man
Think back to freebie holidays for Blair and, more recently, Boris. Neither man was brought down by them. Even if you are right about troughing, how does it bring Starmer down?
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
Push back into work? How do you make employers employ sick people?
Oh now that's a surprise because he was tipped a while back to be editor of the Times.
These days, being editor of the Spec is arguably more prestigious and powerful
"arguably"? Let's hear the arguments then Genuinely interested to read how you back that up, I'm sure you'll give it a good go.
I think people slightly dismiss The Times as a "Murdoch Rag". Although I have no doubt they have complete editorial independence.
The Speccie, meanwhile, and in particular post the Taki/Charles Moore/nasty era (apparently, so Leon assures me) much more "in tune" with movers and shakers.
The Spectator and The Telegraph are being taken over by billionaire Paul Marshall who currently owns UnHerd and GBNews. Instead of criticising the increasingly decrepit and irrelevant right-wing nutter Rupert Murdoch, we should now be criticising the increasingly vital and relevant right-wing nutter Paul Marshall on the same grounds.
(EDIT: incidentally, isn't this the plot of "Succession"?)
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
If any of those loaned apartments/cash donations have been described less-than-accurately by the Labour pols involved (I am not accusing anyone, just hypothesising) then Ali now has tremendous leverage over them
He can say "well actually that apartment wasn't used for precisely the purpose depicted by Politician X" and then Politician X is finished
This kind of leverage is wrong and bad. It would be wrong in any government. And all from one man
Think back to freebie holidays for Blair and, more recently, Boris. Neither man was brought down by them. Even if you are right about troughing, how does it bring Starmer down?
Firstly, because of the hypocrisy. Secondly, Lord Alli seems to have vastly more hands on influence than any of the people giving free holidays to Blair or Boris.
Mr. Sandpit, " Because if Alli had instead rented the place out commercially, he’d have got £20k for it. Opportunity cost, as an economist would say. "
Or, indeed, a strategy gamer.
I assume it would have stood empty. Cost to Alli, zero.
Cost to Starmer, £20k in kind.
If his employer had done that, he’d have been had for the income tax on the £20k.
One law for politicians, another for the rest of us.
Again.
Really? I'm an employer, if I let one of my staff's children study in my flat for a few days, I am treating that as a favour rather than a benefit in kind.
Which is why Reeves wants to hire a load more tax inspectors.
Letting someone stay in your spare room for a few days, is very different from letting them stay in a massive penthouse in central London.
If Starmer didn’t think so, he’d wouldn’t have declared the arrangement.
To your average tax collector, Starmer’s arrangement as discussed is 100% a BIK.
Which he declared, as a gift. Are you having problems understanding this ?
Simple, greedy grasping millionaire takes freebies and makes himself open to having to return favours and looks exceedingly dodgy and Tin eared
Yes quite
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
If any of those loaned apartments/cash donations have been described less-than-accurately by the Labour pols involved (I am not accusing anyone, just hypothesising) then Ali now has tremendous leverage over them
He can say "well actually that apartment wasn't used for precisely the purpose depicted by Politician X" and then Politician X is finished
This kind of leverage is wrong and bad. It would be wrong in any government. And all from one man
Think back to freebie holidays for Blair and, more recently, Boris. Neither man was brought down by them. Even if you are right about troughing, how does it bring Starmer down?
Precisely because Starmer has made such a fuss about cleaning up politics, and "serving the nation", and being Mr Forensic and Disapproving and Super Goody Two Shoes
If it, say, turns out he has told lies about one of these "donations" then he is finished, in a way Blair and Boris would not have been finished, because we all knew Blair was a charming shyster and Boris a randy but funny dissembler
Starmer has no charm, humour, persona or good ideas. All he has is that aura of probity and serious duty. Take that away and he's done
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
It's rare we agree on anything but I'm happy to agree with you on this.
It's difficult and there are undoubtedly genuine cases of people who cannot work because of long-term debilitating or chronic conditions and I've every sympathy for those individuals.
Mental health is one of those areas where the Coalition did some very good work - stress is a thing, I saw it many times in my working life and people react to it in different ways, some relish it, others don't. Helping those for whom stress is a negative experience get back to work is something all thoughtful employers should be and are about.
That said, there are unquestionably a number who are playing the system to get sickness benefit in lieu of working for a living and that has to be the target. Whether that number is 1.5 million or not I don't know.
This has a Barnard Castle feel about it. Surely Sir Keir, with all his wealth, contacts and influence, could arrange to get his son somewhere quiet to study without having to go through all these shenanigans with huge amounts of donated money. What's going on?
It has been speculated upon, and there's no evidence I have seen, that Starmer and his wife now live very separate lives.
This would certainly accord with all the bachelor pad style living in various kindly donated bolt holes.
If it is true (and it's a HUGE if), I have no idea how they plan to survive cooped up in a small flat in Number 10, even with Boris's beautiful wallpaper to cheer them up.
That’s personal, irrelevant, and unworthy of you. The workings of someone else’s marriage has no bearing on anything
It is personal, but it's not really irrelevant, given that if this (or a private issue of any nature, let's not be specific) were to be known by insiders, such as donors, it would put the Prime Minister under obligations far greater than owing someone a favour for some free glasses.
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
Push back into work? How do you make employers employ sick people?
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
Push back into work? How do you make employers employ sick people?
I think you start from the position of asking what people are claiming is their sickness/disability etc. Some will clearly be unable to do ANY job, but not all, notably so in the days on WFH etc. It also touches on the idea of whether or not you believe that all the people on the benefits are on them correctly. Most people, I suspect, want to work, for all kinds of reasons. Providing ways to help them do that is surely a win for all?
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
It's rare we agree on anything but I'm happy to agree with you on this.
It's difficult and there are undoubtedly genuine cases of people who cannot work because of long-term debilitating or chronic conditions and I've every sympathy for those individuals.
Mental health is one of those areas where the Coalition did some very good work - stress is a thing, I saw it many times in my working life and people react to it in different ways, some relish it, others don't. Helping those for whom stress is a negative experience get back to work is something all thoughtful employers should be and are about.
That said, there are unquestionably a number who are playing the system to get sickness benefit in lieu of working for a living and that has to be the target. Whether that number is 1.5 million or not I don't know.
Awkward moment in Sweden last time I visited. I had a full English breakfast in the capital and part of it fell in love with me.
I have an image of a plate of beans sending you a love letter. Please explain
Stockholm syndrome is a proposed condition or theory that tries to explain why hostages sometimes develop a psychological bond with their captors.[1][2]
Have to say the expectation of work and work assessments for people on sickness benefits is the first Labour policy I support. The Tories should have done this in 2022. We also need to move to independent work assessments rather than GPs.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
It's rare we agree on anything but I'm happy to agree with you on this.
It's difficult and there are undoubtedly genuine cases of people who cannot work because of long-term debilitating or chronic conditions and I've every sympathy for those individuals.
Mental health is one of those areas where the Coalition did some very good work - stress is a thing, I saw it many times in my working life and people react to it in different ways, some relish it, others don't. Helping those for whom stress is a negative experience get back to work is something all thoughtful employers should be and are about.
That said, there are unquestionably a number who are playing the system to get sickness benefit in lieu of working for a living and that has to be the target. Whether that number is 1.5 million or not I don't know.
Are there 1.5m jobs for them out there, though?
Probably not, but we'd save the difference between sickness benefits and unemployment benefits at least and work isn't a zero sum game, if more people are in work there is more economic activity which will create more jobs.
Awkward moment in Sweden last time I visited. I had a full English breakfast in the capital and part of it fell in love with me.
I have an image of a plate of beans sending you a love letter. Please explain
Stockholm syndrome is a proposed condition or theory that tries to explain why hostages sometimes develop a psychological bond with their captors.[1][2]
Psst: It’s best to try and disguise cut and pastes from Wikipedia by deleting the bracketed numbers
Comments
Mainly so he has to read my nonsense.
completely unknowninfluential people in British right-wing politics. So him and Nigel Farage, and perhaps Kemi makes the set.But will he be an excellent journalist after being a politician ?
I remember when "the editor of the Times" was a really important person. And anyone interested in politics would know his/her name
Now a PB geek will know the name of the Speccie editor, and probably the Guardian, and just possibly the Mail? Not the Times
Not quite sure why that is. Possibly because the Times is now predictably and quite boringly centrist, and also because it is locked behind that rigid paywall, so it is much less visible
Oh, I kill myself.
Harris to flesh out her economic vision in Pittsburgh, pitching 'pragmatic' approach
In what her campaign calls a “major speech,” the vice president will seek to cut into Republican rival Donald Trump's advantage among voters on handling the economy.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/harris-economic-plan-speech-2024-election-trump-pennsylvania-rcna172342
Murdoch steadily trashed it.
However you slice it, this magazine is successful, as are the podcasts, the US/Oz editions, etc. It is one of the few success stories in a tough time for written journalism (not just in the UK but across the west)
....As the Minister withdrew, Hermann the Irascible, who was also nicknamed the Wise, gave a profound chuckle.
"There are more ways of killing a cat than by choking it with cream," he quoted, "but I'm not sure," he added, "that it's not the best way."
The other story here is what exactly is Lord Ali getting in return for these endless wads of cash/loaned apartments?
He's worth £200m, apparently. You don't end up worth £200m unless you are pretty ruthless with money and you know how to make it work for you. He is clearly expecting reward for this dosh, it's not because he is "kind"
Alongside the blustering Labour lies, this is the big story
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/factbox-kamala-harris-economic-plans-090704661.html
It has surprising reach
A non partisan take on what Harris and Trump offer manufacturing.
Harris and Trump are offering radically different visions of manufacturing — and how the government can help in 2025
https://finance.yahoo.com/news/harris-and-trump-are-offering-radically-different-visions-of-manufacturing--and-how-the-government-can-help-in-2025-113729063.html
The Spectator clearly has been a big success.
https://www.gov.uk/caution-warning-penalty
@nickwallis
This is amazing. A German man who self-IDs as a woman might avoid a charge of exposing his penis, as he is legally a woman. In Germany only a man can be convicted of exposing his penis. QED the crime could not happen."
https://x.com/nickwallis/status/1838509044190879781
As was my wont, I had a pile of papers to read - I had arrived absurdly early and had a couple of hours to kill.
The Guardian didn't seem to disturb the resting herd of academics.
The Times produced a kind of flutter of movement - that moment from David Attenborough documentaries when the herd becomes aware There Is Something There.
The Telegraph produced a noticeable reaction.
When I produced the Spectator from my bag, it was something like the reaction of Dennistoun, when he realised that Canon Alberic's chum had turned up.
Like that one.
The po-faced left seems to have lost the ability to be amusing and cleverly frivolous, hence the decline of the Observer
ALSO also the times have simply changed. The idea of a big long newspaper that gives you "all the news" seems a bit daft to modern minds. You wouldn't invent a newspaper now if the concept wasn't already extant
However, a collection of strong, well-written opinions on different matters, art, sports, travel, politics? Yes, that makes much more sense. People still want to hear witty or wise opinions/experiences, hence the success of Substack (and the Spec)
There is a better future for mags like the Spec than 90% of papers
Bullfinch Group Polling (no, me neither!) have Trump only up by 1% in Florida.... They also have Harris up by 2% in both North Carolina and Georgia.
*the subscriptions were culled at some point during Covid, I think, now we get a few university publications, but sometimes still see fairly old copies of THE or Nursing Times, which I assume someone simply donates when done with them
Trump has an even bigger glitch than Starmer. Tells voters he gave them "the biggest tax hike in the history of our country..."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTa8F5UtvxI - at 2 mins 20
12 speeches on the Marriages (Same Sex Couples) Bill, 5 on the Equality Bill, pretty much everything else on LGBT issues in other bills. He is an activist shopping for legislation, or he is a kindly old buffer who likes to help PMs and other Cabinet Ministers live their best lives, with not a thought in the world for any reward. Pick one.
BTW I approve to strongly approve of the above Bills (now Acts), but that's not the point.
Arguing in one state New York that it’s his constitutional right to be on the ballot and at the same time in Wisconsin arguing it’s his constitutional right to be off the ballot .
Acting in bad faith was though rewarded in North Carolina where the corrupt Trump enabling State Supreme Court caused a two week delay to absentee ballots going out by agreeing to his demands .
A caution is not a criminal conviction, but it could be used as evidence of bad character if you go to court for another crime.
I do find these headlines to be absurd. He is hardly humiliated. It is a setback but symbolic which he will get over, probably already has.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/starmer-humiliated-by-labour-winter-fuel-revolt/ar-AA1rbo3M?ocid=entnewsntp&pc=U531&cvid=be83ab3def484b11899352e0d2c94f2f&ei=12
He can say "well actually that apartment wasn't used for precisely the purpose depicted by Politician X" and then Politician X is finished
This kind of leverage is wrong and bad. It would be wrong in any government. And all from one man
It is, as I say, readable and entertaining, which is two out of three. By contrast the New Statesman is unreadable, not entertaining and, like the Spectator, superficial.
This is not uncommon. Embracing clear principles and politics - a broad world view - in any deep sort of way, and interpreting the world in its light, and editorialising about it is hard at the moment, but never more needed.
The current circulation is an excellent achievement. But for now, those responsible for its editorial line could do with going back to basics and having a read of Burke, Aristotle, MacIntyre, Scruton, Hayek, Friedman, Iris Murdoch, Pope John Paul II and some more.
I think the new editor might reject it as insufficiently amusing.
I remember someone at my old workplace worked out it would need ~4.5k centrally contracted doctors to give everyone on sickness benefits one 30 minute work assessment every 90 days but it would also take a significant chunk out of GP appointment schedules freeing up resource for people who are sick and looking to get better rather than people who are chronically sick and won't get better or people who aren't sick and just want to get signed off by scamming and pretending they are.
There's probably 1.5m people that can be pushed into the lesser unemployment benefits or back into work if this is done right and that will result in a ~£10bn saving at least.
PS sitting in an airport with a 45 min delay so far. 4 hour delay on the way out. Have I mentioned I hate flying?
DON’T MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE WITH IRAN THAT DENIALISTS MADE WITH RUSSIA
https://www.emptywheel.net/2024/09/25/dont-make-the-same-mistake-with-iran-that-denialists-made-with-russia/
...Trump’s narcissistic behavior is one reason it’s so easy for hostile countries like Russia and Iran to stoke division.
But that doesn’t mean you should make it easier for them, by doubting the word of neutral parties who attest the threat to Trump is real. The Russian attack continues to do real damage, to this day, because the investigation into it led to such polarization. If I’m right about the Steele dossier (Ball of Thread version), some of that was by design, while some of it was the auspicious upside (from the perspective of Russia) of targeting a narcissist. But the result is the same: By targeting Trump, you can elicit the tribalism that damages the US, regardless of Iran’s (or Russia’s) other efforts. A great deal of the polarization in the US, a great deal of the conspiracism on the part of Trump supporters, and therefore a great deal of the extremism, stems from the response to the Russian attack and investigation.
Whether a (hostile) country backs Trump or wants revenge against him, the goal is the same: to end US hegemony and extend authoritarianism. There are public, rational reasons to believe that Iran really is targeting Trump. There are no good reasons to instead irrationally doubt those public attributions.
(EDIT: incidentally, isn't this the plot of "Succession"?)
But I doubt his time in politics will have improved him as a journalist.
If it, say, turns out he has told lies about one of these "donations" then he is finished, in a way Blair and Boris would not have been finished, because we all knew Blair was a charming shyster and Boris a randy but funny dissembler
Starmer has no charm, humour, persona or good ideas. All he has is that aura of probity and serious duty. Take that away and he's done
It's difficult and there are undoubtedly genuine cases of people who cannot work because of long-term debilitating or chronic conditions and I've every sympathy for those individuals.
Mental health is one of those areas where the Coalition did some very good work - stress is a thing, I saw it many times in my working life and people react to it in different ways, some relish it, others don't. Helping those for whom stress is a negative experience get back to work is something all thoughtful employers should be and are about.
That said, there are unquestionably a number who are playing the system to get sickness benefit in lieu of working for a living and that has to be the target. Whether that number is 1.5 million or not I don't know.
And that's before we hear their nuggets of wisdom next week.....
Most people, I suspect, want to work, for all kinds of reasons. Providing ways to help them do that is surely a win for all?
https://news.sky.com/story/money-blog-personal-finance-consumer-news-13040934