Howdy, Stranger!

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

PB 2025 predicitions competition – final chance to enter – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    He was not right and he doesn't now look prescient. The issue was his unseemly haste to politicise this tragedy with speculative pigeon-speak ramblings as to what caused it. It showed (as if it needed more showing) his unfitness for the presidency.
    Hoover's Pilot Debrief on this is worth a watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzQe6W7vcu4

    He sticks to the facts, but it looks very much like most of the blame lies with the helicopter pilot or with the protocols in place. The helicopter pilot twice confirmed that he had the plane in sight, and was further told by ATC to pass behind the plane when they appeared to be on a possible collision course. I'm not sure what more ATC could have done in this situation.
    It seems he was talking about the wrong plane, so ATC could have tried to confirm it.
    If there were two nearly planes, and ATC could see all three aircraft on radar, then it’s a communication failure.

    “The conflict aircraft is at your 10 o’clock not your 2 o’clock” does the trick.
    Would ATC have known which way the helicopter was facing? In the video, the helicopter appears to be manoevring in various directions before apparently ascending into the path of the plane.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,704


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    I think it only makes a difference if they lose out to them at a “real” election. Then it will be panic stations and even Boris will be on the table.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,485
    edited January 31

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    The discriminatory hiring practices in US ATC (which, lets face it, is what they were) appear to have been made illegal by Congress in 2016.

    It seems hard to believe that ATC is still affected at an operational level.

    (Obviously everybody involved in this fiasco deserves every single bit of opprobrium thrown at them.)
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,228
    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 74,892
    Phil said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    The discriminatory hiring practices in US ATC (which, lets face it, is what they were) appear to have been made illegal by Congress in 2016.

    It seems hard to believe that ATC is still affected at an operational level.

    (Obviously everybody involved in this fiasco deserves every single bit of opprobrium thrown at them.)
    Until the enquiry is complete, they really don't.
  • PhilPhil Posts: 2,485
    Nigelb said:

    Phil said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    The discriminatory hiring practices in US ATC (which, lets face it, is what they were) appear to have been made illegal by Congress in 2016.

    It seems hard to believe that ATC is still affected at an operational level.

    (Obviously everybody involved in this fiasco deserves every single bit of opprobrium thrown at them.)
    Until the enquiry is complete, they really don't.
    For clarity: by “fiasco” I meant the discriminatory hiring fiasco, not the current tragedy.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,972
    edited January 31
    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,827

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,827

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700
    kinabalu said:

    kamski said:

    Dopermean said:

    kamski said:

    Can I just point out the CDU leader Merz is an idiot. Widely seen as arrogant, out of touch, thin-skinned and clumsy, he's also just rubbish at politics.

    In the middle of a general election campaign, he's decided to pull a massive political stunt by putting forward rushed, unworkable legislation that has zero chance of becoming law any time soon. But it doesn't even make any sense as a political stunt, as all it achieves is to boost the AfD (unless that is his aim - I'm beginning to wonder), make the job of making a coalition after the election much more difficult, and upset lots of people in his own party.

    Aiming for a coalition with the AfD rather than with more centrist parties would be the suspicion. He must have bunked off history lessons.
    There's no chance of a coalition with the AfD after the next election. I've no idea what goes on in Merz's brain, but the CDU wouldn't allow it, it's a non-starter.
    I get the impression that the "normal" politicians in Germany are flailing around, a bit, as here. They don't know what to do. Which is ripe for stupid decisions.

    The AfD is considerably worse than Reform, I think.

    Thoughts?
    The AfD are composed of the people Farage is trying, with varying degrees of success, to keep out of Reform.
    But while performing the complicated manoeuvre of having them still vote for him.
    Agreed, but that might still be better than having them vote for something else. To my mind there is a clear divide between Farage and fascists. We need to be genuinely vigilant against the latter and call them out because they are genuinely dangerous and on the march, and it doesn't help that effort to try to tar rightwingers like Farage with the same brush.
    I don't actually see much difference between Farage and the Braverman wing of the Tory party. He is closer in politics, to Starmer and Badenoch than Trump or the AfD despite his bromance with the orange one.
    Hmm, I am not sure. The founder of UKIP, Alan Sked has said that Farage is a racist. Farage doesn't care about whipping up divisive hatred. I would say he is very very close to Trump in many ways. How much farther to the right the AfD are, I am not able to judge. I am right of centre in most of my politics, but I see Farage as an odious egotistical crypto-fascist.
    How many of the following would Farage do:

    Blatantly lie about an election result
    Encourage his supporters to attack the police
    Encourage his supporters to hang his deputy
    Blame minorities for an air crash within hours of it happening
    Threaten to invade Greenland

    He is definitely unpleasant at times, likes a cheap shot, but that is true of plenty in all the established parties. He is closer to them than the likes of Trump.
    How often has he really challenged Trump on these things? Not much that I have noticed. He is also a recidivist apologist for Putin, which in my opinion makes him scum of the earth.
    He wants the Trump bromance. So do Starmer, Lammy and Mandelson whilst they are in power.
    There's no doubt he's kissed the Trump ring (a phrase almost as discomfiting as 'that' photograph). Despite that Farage didn't get an invite to the Trump inauguration ceremony which suggests DJT doesn't see him as rich or influential enough. Of course Boris was there..
    Yes I'm seeing that phrase a little too often for my liking. Can we not substitute with "genuflected in abject fashion" or something similar.
    "In the end, they all kneel..."
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,589
    edited January 31
    biggles said:


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    I think it only makes a difference if they lose out to them at a “real” election. Then it will be panic stations and even Boris will be on the table.
    There will be a lot of people who don't want a Runcorn by-election. It's Every Politican v PB, the media and Farage.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 64,544
    biggles said:


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    I think it only makes a difference if they lose out to them at a “real” election. Then it will be panic stations and even Boris will be on the table.
    I think Boris being leader at next GE is a good bet.

    I have a few £ on that.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,135
    ClippP said:

    Taz said:

    a

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    What the actual f***?

    Can’t they just set up a recruitment centre in Manila? There would be a queue around the block for UK visas for care workers, most of whom would be qualified nurses and could work towards UK certification.

    Charge £10k/year/dependent for visas.
    They do recruit from Manila.

    When my wife was in HR for the NHS she went, with a team, to the Phillipines to recruit nurses.

    There was a queue round the block. People travelled for days from outer areas to get there.
    Awesome! Something like 80% of the nurses in the sandpit are Filipinas, lovely people.
    They're great. They also recruit from India. The nurses have to commit to 3 years in the region. Problem it a fair few of the Indian ones then move off to Leicester, Brum, London and other places with a large diaspora. The Filipino's tend to put down roots and stay. The Phillipines trains more nurses than they need and get paid a fee for the ones we take.

    Works brilliantly and they are fantastic workers.
    "The Philippines trains more nurses than they need" - hmmm. We have a shortage of training places for people who graduate with medical degrees.

    Perhaps we could do a deal.
    I have just said that. We do. Well South Tyneside and Sunderland Trust do.

    Probably something other trusts could do as well.
    I meant sending UK graduates to train in the Philippines. We have the bizarre situation that with a growing population, and growing NHS, we have a cap on the number of university places for medical studies. Based on having places for the graduates to train, afterwards.
    Ah, got you, yes, why not. It would make sense and give the graduates a great life experience to boot.
    Alternatively, stop nursing being a graduate level training, and go back to what it was in the good old days.
    As noted her many times before, nursing degrees are largely vocational and focusing on the skills essential for the job. By all means move the courses out of universities, but what is actually taught wouldn't change much (and it might become less attractive as an option, not having a degree at the end of it).

    (Source - I work in a department that runs nursing and midwifery degrees. I have lectured on the nursing courses, on the use and limitations of the National Early Warning Score - something nurses need to know - and a very brief bit about understanding research papers and knowing good research from crap. That latter bit is less relevant to the day to day job for many, but useful for the nurses who end up working in the community and getting asked about all kinds of fad treatments.)
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,589
    edit
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    edited January 31

    Selebian said:

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    This is the way to do it:

    image

    Apparently, the crops benefit from windbreaks, so it makes perfect sense to use solar panels for that purpose. The crops grow just as well, and there is still access for machinery.
    I guess the panels are cheap enough now that it's fine to have them in a suboptimal orientation, particularly if that means you can also use the land for agriculture.

    My only concern is that this could restrict a new generation of Theresa Mays from running through farmers' fields - or at least, limit them to a single direction :disappointed:
    It looks to me like those panels are mounted on a tilting mechanism, so they can be stored vertically whilst the combine is in, but turned to a better angle when being used for generation.

    However, I'm not quite sure this is more efficient than a field of solar panels and a field of wheat. No doubt someone has the numbers...
    There are tools to help calculate yields on panels that follow the sun in one or two axes (ie did the calcs and said "not worth it at this point"). I have dealt with these around panels on house walls or flat roofs or in gardens. You may get up to an extra 30-35% of power very approximately.

    Generally the extra complexity renders the benefit marginal over 2 or 3 decades due to wear and tear.

    In this field case however ... hmmm. I think they may be better with them on taller frames not needing adjusting.

    OTOH the better they are orientated, the more sunlight it will block.
  • RattersRatters Posts: 1,224
    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Yes the President needed to stick to the sombre mood for much longer than he did.

    One thing Donny is shit scared of is getting the blame. His first instinct is to blame someone else, for anything, everything.

    Like a toddler.

    "I didn't do it. It wasn't me"
    I think that's very unfair. As a parent of two toddlers, they take far more responsibility for their actions than Trump.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,021

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    He was not right and he doesn't now look prescient. The issue was his unseemly haste to politicise this tragedy with speculative pigeon-speak ramblings as to what caused it. It showed (as if it needed more showing) his unfitness for the presidency.
    Hoover's Pilot Debrief on this is worth a watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzQe6W7vcu4

    He sticks to the facts, but it looks very much like most of the blame lies with the helicopter pilot or with the protocols in place. The helicopter pilot twice confirmed that he had the plane in sight, and was further told by ATC to pass behind the plane when they appeared to be on a possible collision course. I'm not sure what more ATC could have done in this situation.
    It seems he was talking about the wrong plane, so ATC could have tried to confirm it.
    If there were two nearly planes, and ATC could see all three aircraft on radar, then it’s a communication failure.

    “The conflict aircraft is at your 10 o’clock not your 2 o’clock” does the trick.
    Would ATC have known which way the helicopter was facing? In the video, the helicopter appears to be manoevring in various directions before apparently ascending into the path of the plane.
    They would know in which directing it’s travelling, as opposed to facing, which isn’t a subtle distiction when talking about a helicopter that can fly sideways at high speed.

    IMHO there were a few seconds when a shouted radio message from someone might have led to one or other of the pilots avoiding the collision, but that’s what Americans would call Monday morning quarterbacking.
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,228
    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,704
    Taz said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
    Why did Buck leave?
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,120
    Runcorn will be a must win for the Fukkers and a must avoid third place for the Kemical Brothers. Don't think it matters too much for Labour because their chance of holding it is 0%. Utter failure is already priced in.

  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    I see The Nigel has made an emergency broadcast about the Elections in May:

    Infamy ! Infamy !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_hWVwS-BNA
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 13,589

    biggles said:


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    I think it only makes a difference if they lose out to them at a “real” election. Then it will be panic stations and even Boris will be on the table.
    I think Boris being leader at next GE is a good bet.

    I have a few £ on that.
    Then odds have to take account of the fact that therewould have to be a by-election in a seat where (a) Boris can win in principle (so not Bootle) and (b) he can actually beat the Reform candidate.

    So basically it has to be a seat where Reform could win. Would Boris be up for that? It wouldn't be dull, and could deliver a knock out blow to whichever side came second.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,933

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,924
    biggles said:

    Taz said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
    Why did Buck leave?
    'I'm not stopping here!'
  • TresTres Posts: 2,750
    Sandpit said:

    Carnyx said:

    Sandpit said:

    Oh, so this is why it got so political so quickly.

    https://x.com/osinttechnical/status/1884889137972466142

    The number of flight slots at Reagan airport actually gets discussed by the US Senate, with of course Senators from almost everywhere wanting more of them to the closest airport to their offices.

    The UK equivalent would be the MPs demanding one flight a minute into LCY, from every little regional airport in a country with no motorways and no railway lines. Because they all think LHR is too far away.

    Also, Republican politics and what happened to the ATCs. Reagan isn't in the current mix just because he has the airport named after him. Some people on Pprune are of the view that US ATC never recovered from the mass sackings at that time - culture and staffing levels changed. IANAE though.
    Obviously it has nothing to do with Ronald Reagan, there’s no-one involved in ATC now who was there four decades ago when the President took the nuclear option to resolve a labour dispute. That option wouldn’t be there now, as the airspace is so much busier and there are a lot of more civvy and a lot fewer mil controllers to take over.

    The allegations are that there has been racial and ‘gender’ profiling in recruitment in recent years, which has led to staff shortages, and in common with most Biden-era agencies there’s plenty of public documents and videos saying that “aviation has a white man problem” and similar sentiments.

    The NTSB investigation isn’t going to go into the hiring policies of the FAA, but it is very much going to go into staffing levels, shift patterns, and work hours at Reagan Airport. There’s been suggestions that ATC have been working 10h days and 6d weeks, which would be totally illegal in pretty much every other Western country.
    I heard that a number of trans ATC workers had been asked to stop coming into work after Trump's first week, but don't know if that particulary had any impact on the staffing at this airport.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    Taz said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
    Job opportunity for Truss !

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,021

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    Did you not see this?
    https://x.com/marionawfal/status/1884632713895846146
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    Nigelb said:

    This is not a good idea. At all.

    EU officials back plan to restart Russian gas flows as part of Ukraine peace deal - FT

    Germany and Hungary lead push to resume Russian gas flows despite opposition from eastern EU states

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1884919573536760311

    They were being quite rude about that one on Ukraine the Latest, presumably yesterday.

    Along the lines of "the mind boggles".

  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    a

    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Sandpit said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    What the actual f***?

    Can’t they just set up a recruitment centre in Manila? There would be a queue around the block for UK visas for care workers, most of whom would be qualified nurses and could work towards UK certification.

    Charge £10k/year/dependent for visas.
    They do recruit from Manila.

    When my wife was in HR for the NHS she went, with a team, to the Phillipines to recruit nurses.

    There was a queue round the block. People travelled for days from outer areas to get there.
    Awesome! Something like 80% of the nurses in the sandpit are Filipinas, lovely people.
    They're great. They also recruit from India. The nurses have to commit to 3 years in the region. Problem it a fair few of the Indian ones then move off to Leicester, Brum, London and other places with a large diaspora. The Filipino's tend to put down roots and stay. The Phillipines trains more nurses than they need and get paid a fee for the ones we take.

    Works brilliantly and they are fantastic workers.
    "The Philippines trains more nurses than they need" - hmmm. We have a shortage of training places for people who graduate with medical degrees.

    Perhaps we could do a deal.
    I have just said that. We do. Well South Tyneside and Sunderland Trust do.

    Probably something other trusts could do as well.
    I meant sending UK graduates to train in the Philippines. We have the bizarre situation that with a growing population, and growing NHS, we have a cap on the number of university places for medical studies. Based on having places for the graduates to train, afterwards.
    Ah, got you, yes, why not. It would make sense and give the graduates a great life experience to boot.
    Cross cultural learning, deep immersion in other cultures, post colonial restitution... paying a developing country, doing real healthcare while there, making up for the strip mining of medical staff from such countries & establishing a real working relationship with the medical structures in that country, not just recruiting their staff.

    Sounds like DEI heaven, really.
    It's not the daftest idea Sandpit has had.
    Well worth working out the detail of how it might operate.
    He said Matt Gaetz was a good pick for Attorney General, so... no, not his daftest idea.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    So what you are saying is that sheep are the ChavScum of mythology?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,015


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    On seats though most polls still have the Conservatives still ahead of Reform on seats
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,230
    Ratters said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Sandpit said:

    Yes the President needed to stick to the sombre mood for much longer than he did.

    One thing Donny is shit scared of is getting the blame. His first instinct is to blame someone else, for anything, everything.

    Like a toddler.

    "I didn't do it. It wasn't me"
    I think that's very unfair. As a parent of two toddlers, they take far more responsibility for their actions than Trump.
    I'm not convinced. I keep asking "Have you done a poo?" and the answer is always no. Even when he has.

    As for my son, well...
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,972
    No, it's strategic. Reform are the real enemy, not Labour, and boosting Reform is the best way to win over the centrist "stop Farage" voters.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,215

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    It sounds like a football hooligan outfit.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,021

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 42,924
    kinabalu said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    It sounds like a football hooligan outfit.
    Or a white soul outfit who dress in sharp 60s suits and are great live.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,933

    No, it's strategic. Reform are the real enemy, not Labour, and boosting Reform is the best way to win over the centrist "stop Farage" voters.
    Bonkers.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,098
    "The final results will be announced soon after 8 January 2026, when question 14 will be settled."

    Blimey! LHR could get its 3rd runway by then (joke!)
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700
    Why fight, when you can surrender in advance and omit all that "fighting for your principles" thing that politics used to do?
  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,228
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    The old folk can wipe their own bums I guess.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 53,972

    No, it's strategic. Reform are the real enemy, not Labour, and boosting Reform is the best way to win over the centrist "stop Farage" voters.
    Bonkers.
    Thank you.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,933

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    So what you are saying is that sheep are the ChavScum of mythology?
    That’s way over my head Malmsy. I think it’s more likely down the centuries village idiots have been inbreeding with them.

    Their only pastime is eating, though they might be showing a bit of interest in radio five of late. Not sure if that means anything at all.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    The old folk can wipe their own bums I guess.
    More than 80% of the "bum wipers" are of UK origin.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,215

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700

    No, it's strategic. Reform are the real enemy, not Labour, and boosting Reform is the best way to win over the centrist "stop Farage" voters.
    That never works. Letting your enemy win on the assumption that they will frighten people to your side is naive. People might find they like it and do it again.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,933

    No, it's strategic. Reform are the real enemy, not Labour, and boosting Reform is the best way to win over the centrist "stop Farage" voters.
    Bonkers.
    Thank you.
    I think I’ve got you sussed Willy, by reading all your posts as though it’s a parody account.
  • MoonRabbitMoonRabbit Posts: 13,933
    That Steve Warnock bloke talks twaddle about football. Take this

    “When you look at the draw for both Aston Villa and Liverpool, it's very favourable”

    Correct me if I don’t understand the route, but increasingly in form increasingly dangerous PSG in last 16 won’t be remotely favourable 🤷‍♀️
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,129
    edited January 31

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    We are undergoing THE REFORMATION. There are parallels. For instance, the Tories are currently having to eat the Diet of Worms.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,230
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Arguably its like the bus. The number was wrong but its got us talking... Its interesting, as presumably most are wives/husbands and children, so there will be a component of extra need for education etc. In the main younger people tend to need less healthcare, but they ALL need somewhere to live in these crowded Isles.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,215
    MattW said:

    I see The Nigel has made an emergency broadcast about the Elections in May:

    Infamy ! Infamy !

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_hWVwS-BNA

    The Nigel from The Reform?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,015

    biggles said:


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    I think it only makes a difference if they lose out to them at a “real” election. Then it will be panic stations and even Boris will be on the table.
    I think Boris being leader at next GE is a good bet.

    I have a few £ on that.
    No. CCHQ will block him from the parliamentary candidates list.

    Boris also massively expanded non EU immigration.

    Voters wanting a harder line on immigration would prefer a Farage premiership propped up by Kemi now than Boris PM again
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    biggles said:

    Taz said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
    Why did Buck leave?
    Bucks Fizz were formed by songwriters married couple Nichola Martin and Andy Hill as a vehicle for their song "Making Your Mind Up" to enter Eurovision, with Bobby G, Cheryl Baker, Mike Nolan and Jay Aston. This is the line-up people know.

    They were then involved in a serious coach crash in Dec 1984, then internal tensions arose. Aston had been sleeping with Hill. Aston left and was replaced, the band had its last hit, but then the replacement then left. Baker left. Everything's gone down hill. Bobby G has ended up in charge. He and Nolan recruit two new girls (and G marries one of them), but Nolan then leaves. So far, this is a typical story of successful band reduced to one original member who is still touring playing the old hits.

    OK, this is where it then gets complicated. G recruits David Van Day, who was half of Dollar. The partnership rapidly falters, and Van Day leaves... only for him to join up with Nolan. Nolan and Van Day start a rival Bucks Fizz. G sues, so the new group has to be called "Bucks Fizz starring Mike Nolan and featuring David Van Day". A few years later, Nolan's relationship with Van Day also falters, which leaves Van Day in charge of a group called Bucks Fizz without any members who had been in the band during their glory days. G + wife put together a new line-up. They go back to court. G wins the case. Van Day's band becomes "David Van Day's Bucks Fizz Show", and he soon gives up to reform Dollar.

    Bobby G's Bucks Fizz potters along until 2018 in control of the name. Meanwhile, Nolan gets back together with original members Baker and Aston. (I'm skipping over some complicated stuff in 2004-9.) They don't own the name, so they (after another law suit) end up calling themselves the Fizz. They have enjoyed a modicum of success, more than the Bobby G band. However, Nolan has recently left the group, so it's Baker + Aston + some other people now.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 18,230
    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
    I'd extend that to almost anything put out by any political party.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    edited January 31

    kamski said:

    Dopermean said:

    kamski said:

    Can I just point out the CDU leader Merz is an idiot. Widely seen as arrogant, out of touch, thin-skinned and clumsy, he's also just rubbish at politics.

    In the middle of a general election campaign, he's decided to pull a massive political stunt by putting forward rushed, unworkable legislation that has zero chance of becoming law any time soon. But it doesn't even make any sense as a political stunt, as all it achieves is to boost the AfD (unless that is his aim - I'm beginning to wonder), make the job of making a coalition after the election much more difficult, and upset lots of people in his own party.

    Aiming for a coalition with the AfD rather than with more centrist parties would be the suspicion. He must have bunked off history lessons.
    There's no chance of a coalition with the AfD after the next election. I've no idea what goes on in Merz's brain, but the CDU wouldn't allow it, it's a non-starter.
    I get the impression that the "normal" politicians in Germany are flailing around, a bit, as here. They don't know what to do. Which is ripe for stupid decisions.

    The AfD is considerably worse than Reform, I think.

    Thoughts?
    The AfD are composed of the people Farage is trying, with varying degrees of success, to keep out of Reform.
    But while performing the complicated manoeuvre of having them still vote for him.
    Agreed, but that might still be better than having them vote for something else. To my mind there is a clear divide between Farage and fascists. We need to be genuinely vigilant against the latter and call them out because they are genuinely dangerous and on the march, and it doesn't help that effort to try to tar rightwingers like Farage with the same brush.
    It's an important distinction. Here is the list of points used on The Rest is Politics the other day as a template to apply to Trump's politics. It is from a poster that was on sale in the shop U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum as "'Early Warning Signs Of Fascism'.

    1. Powerful and continuing expressions of nationalism.

    2. Disdain for the importance of human rights.

    3. Identification of enemies/scape-goats as a unifying cause.

    4. The supremacy of the military/ avid militarism.

    5. Rampant sexism.

    6. A controlled mass media.

    7. Obsession with national security.

    8. Religion and ruling elite tied together.

    9. Power of corporations protected.

    10. Power of labour suppressed or eliminated.

    11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals and the arts.

    12. Obsession with crime and punishment.

    13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.

    14. Fraudulent elections.


    I make Trump well on the way to 12-14 out of 14. Farage & Friends are more interesting, and are on a smaller scale with a number of fairly obvious trends (eg 1, 3, 5, 6, 8, 12) but we have more protective bulwarks.

    Full text with descriptions: https://secularhumanism.org/2003/03/fascism-anyone/
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,673
    edited January 31
    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
  • sladeslade Posts: 2,134
    For what it's worth this is the result in Welwyn Hatfield with change from 2023: LD 259(+83), Con 174 (-143), Lab 116(-223), Green 32 (+32). Lib Dem gain from Con.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 23,854
    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 22,062
    I don’t think there’s been sufficient discussion of the Patel intervention.

    Is it now Tory policy that the Boriswave was one of their proudest achievements? If so, we can really dispense with the idea that the Tories have any viable electoral future.

    RIP Tories, 1834-202?
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    dixiedean said:
    The Conservatives are never going to beat Reform when half the party seems happy for Reform to win. They have to fight them!
  • MJWMJW Posts: 1,993
    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    Depends if you're counting doner kebabs.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    HYUFD said:


    Luke Tryl
    @LukeTryl

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    https://x.com/LukeTryl/status/1885272533269680266

    On seats though most polls still have the Conservatives still ahead of Reform on seats
    No, most polls run through seat predictors whose algorithms absolutely cannot cope with the new polling reality have the Tories ahead on seats.
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    Remember that mucho lamb goes into dog food !
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,098
    Dura_Ace said:

    Runcorn will be a must win for the Fukkers and a must avoid third place for the Kemical Brothers. Don't think it matters too much for Labour because their chance of holding it is 0%. Utter failure is already priced in.

    The Kembot!
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
    For added fun.

    1) Companies can basically issue visas
    2) The value of such visas is into 5 figures - a legitimate work visa for the UK
    3) Multiple companies have been caught lying and cheating - selling visas and screwing over the prospective workers.
    4) How much is certifying such a company to be allowed to issue visas worth?

    Follow the money.

    Hey, but it's furriners that are getting bilked. Good for balance of payments, no?
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700
    edited January 31
    Meanwhile, as Trump and Reform steamroller over the Earth and leave it less than before, some slightly happy news. Some of you may remember the outstanding fan-film "Astartes" from some years ago. I'm not a fan of its setting (the Warhammer 40K universe) but the animation was fantastic. The animator has just released a trailer for its sequel, "Astartes II". Something good to look forward to as the sun sets over the West...
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 44,797
    Sandpit said:

    Sandpit said:

    kinabalu said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    Unbelievable. Everyone should read this imo.
    So Trump was right then.

    People may despise the man, but they shouldn't think him stupid. He absolutely knew this info going into the press conference, and couldn't resist jumping the gun, which wasn't appropriate, but now he looks 'prescient', and those yelling at him have massive egg on their face.
    He was not right and he doesn't now look prescient. The issue was his unseemly haste to politicise this tragedy with speculative pigeon-speak ramblings as to what caused it. It showed (as if it needed more showing) his unfitness for the presidency.
    Hoover's Pilot Debrief on this is worth a watch:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RzQe6W7vcu4

    He sticks to the facts, but it looks very much like most of the blame lies with the helicopter pilot or with the protocols in place. The helicopter pilot twice confirmed that he had the plane in sight, and was further told by ATC to pass behind the plane when they appeared to be on a possible collision course. I'm not sure what more ATC could have done in this situation.
    It seems he was talking about the wrong plane, so ATC could have tried to confirm it.
    If there were two nearly planes, and ATC could see all three aircraft on radar, then it’s a communication failure.

    “The conflict aircraft is at your 10 o’clock not your 2 o’clock” does the trick.
    Would ATC have known which way the helicopter was facing? In the video, the helicopter appears to be manoevring in various directions before apparently ascending into the path of the plane.
    They would know in which directing it’s travelling, as opposed to facing, which isn’t a subtle distiction when talking about a helicopter that can fly sideways at high speed.

    IMHO there were a few seconds when a shouted radio message from someone might have led to one or other of the pilots avoiding the collision, but that’s what Americans would call Monday morning quarterbacking.
    And if that had happened yesterday, and the accident avoided, then another incident would have occurred in a few months or years.

    The more I hear about this (caveated with the fact there is little official information so far, which is good...), the more my view is that something like this was inevitable. It was going to happen; and as traffic to/from the airport and down the 'copter route increased, so did the chances of disaster.

    There will be many causal factors in this incident; and the most important ones will not have occurred in the control tower or in either of the cockpits. They will be systematic issues.

    One of the things the FAA should be doing as a priority is looking for other places where there are similar potential conflicts, and look for any whispers of near-misses. There might not be any, but if there are, then they need addressing.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,215

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
    I'd extend that to almost anything put out by any political party.
    Always treat with caution, yes. But there is still (thankfully) a gap between them and the ragbag of twitter sources. Although perhaps not so much in America since the GOP submitted to Donald Trump.
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,399
    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    Why is it so hard to buy mutton or hogget these days? They are even more tasty than lamb, if cooked correctly.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,673
    MattW said:

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    Remember that mucho lamb goes into dog food !
    I shall try and work out what proportion of UK food production is used on feeding pets. The kind of thing I dream of bringing up on Question Time to really ruffle some feathers.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,015
    edited January 31

    dixiedean said:
    The Conservatives are never going to beat Reform when half the party seems happy for Reform to win. They have to fight them!
    No most Conservatives want to get rid of Starmer's useless government above all.

    They don't disagree with Reform anywhere near as much as they do with Labour on most issues, other than Tories are a bit more soft Brexit and Reform a bit more hard Brexit
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
    For added fun.

    1) Companies can basically issue visas
    2) The value of such visas is into 5 figures - a legitimate work visa for the UK
    3) Multiple companies have been caught lying and cheating - selling visas and screwing over the prospective workers.
    4) How much is certifying such a company to be allowed to issue visas worth?

    Follow the money.

    Hey, but it's furriners that are getting bilked. Good for balance of payments, no?
    Pause

    Pause

    The government has just given up on governing... :(

    (PS where's your Blob article?)
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 44,215

    kinabalu said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    It sounds like a football hooligan outfit.
    Or a white soul outfit who dress in sharp 60s suits and are great live.
    Yes more like that actually but I was keen to avoid anything that sounds appealing.
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 30,129
    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:
    The Conservatives are never going to beat Reform when half the party seems happy for Reform to win. They have to fight them!
    No most Conservatives want to get rid of Starmer's useless government above all.

    They don't disagree with Reform anywhere near as much as they do with Labour on most issues, other than Tories are a bit more soft Brexit and Reform a bit more hard Brexit
    That attitude will see you eaten alive by Reform.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,015
    TimS said:

    MattW said:

    Nigelb said:

    This is not a good idea. At all.

    EU officials back plan to restart Russian gas flows as part of Ukraine peace deal - FT

    Germany and Hungary lead push to resume Russian gas flows despite opposition from eastern EU states

    https://x.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1884919573536760311

    They were being quite rude about that one on Ukraine the Latest, presumably yesterday.

    Along the lines of "the mind boggles".

    If this happens then Putin will have plucked an unlikely victory from the jaws of geopolitical defeat.

    A war of aggression should not be rewarded with territorial concessions, but it’s understandable that if people really want it to stop, they may have to accept the status quo for a while. But the status quo also includes Russia being locked out of Western energy markets.

    Utterly brain dead to suggest doing something that will simply fund military rebuilding and hasten the next Russian invasion in Eastern Europe.
    Merz if he becomes Chancellor may block it, he is more anti Putin than Scholz and much more anti Putin than the AfD are
    and wants more German produced gas

    https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/german-opposition-leader-vows-build-50-gas-fired-power-plants-if-elected-2025-01-19/
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 5,399

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Sheep are also ideal for rearing on land unsuitable for arable or dairy.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305
    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
    For added fun.

    1) Companies can basically issue visas
    2) The value of such visas is into 5 figures - a legitimate work visa for the UK
    3) Multiple companies have been caught lying and cheating - selling visas and screwing over the prospective workers.
    4) How much is certifying such a company to be allowed to issue visas worth?

    Follow the money.

    Hey, but it's furriners that are getting bilked. Good for balance of payments, no?
    Pause

    Pause

    The government has just given up on governing... :(

    (PS where's your Blob article?)
    The Blob article was impounded by a Quango, and is in enforced review for the next 27 years, pending its alignment with the policies of Good Government.

    Didn't you know about the outsourcing of visas? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-68337205
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 56,021
    edited January 31

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Arguably its like the bus. The number was wrong but its got us talking... Its interesting, as presumably most are wives/husbands and children, so there will be a component of extra need for education etc. In the main younger people tend to need less healthcare, but they ALL need somewhere to live in these crowded Isles.
    It’s absolutely a housing problem. If there was loads of available and cheap housing, then awesome, come on in…
  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    I think that highlights two things:

    1 - The Usonians always overdo everything.
    2 - The limit we have here - preference for a candidate with a preferred attribute if both are equally eligible - is as far as we can justifiably go in hiring decisions. *

    * There are others things, such as eg peer networks of women, targeted training schemes, which are worth considering. But we don't generally have things here such as the Beta Phi Kappa type mafias founded in Universities (afaik).

  • MattWMattW Posts: 25,542
    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    I think that highlights two things:

    1 - The Usonians always overdo everything.
    2 - The limit we have here - preference for a candidate with a preferred attribute if both are equally eligible - is as far as we can justifiably go in hiring decisions. *

    * There are others things, such as eg peer networks of women, targeted training schemes, which are worth considering. But we don't generally have things here such as the Beta Phi Kappa type mafias founded in Universities (afaik).

  • OnlyLivingBoyOnlyLivingBoy Posts: 16,228
    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
    Right wing populists use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support not illumination.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Sheep are also ideal for rearing on land unsuitable for arable or dairy.
    Brilliantly suitable for land that is being used for solar panels (with a bit of ducting for wiring). The sheep keep the grass down, even in the fiddly bits under the panels, they like the shelter in bad weather and the presence of the sheep and shepard(s) keeps the place from "feeling abandoned" - which reduces vandalism.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 23,700

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
    For added fun.

    1) Companies can basically issue visas
    2) The value of such visas is into 5 figures - a legitimate work visa for the UK
    3) Multiple companies have been caught lying and cheating - selling visas and screwing over the prospective workers.
    4) How much is certifying such a company to be allowed to issue visas worth?

    Follow the money.

    Hey, but it's furriners that are getting bilked. Good for balance of payments, no?
    Pause

    Pause

    The government has just given up on governing... :(

    (PS where's your Blob article?)
    The Blob article was impounded by a Quango, and is in enforced review for the next 27 years, pending its alignment with the policies of Good Government.

    Didn't you know about the outsourcing of visas? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-68337205
    The number of things I don't know is very large. It's one of the reasons why I come here. So I can find out what is happening. Even when it's insane.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 9,673
    edited January 31

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Sheep are also ideal for rearing on land unsuitable for arable or dairy.
    This is the trouble with sheep. They take up a very large proportion of the UK's agricultural land, depend on large subsidies, and contribute little to overall calorie consumption. That compares with grains, which take up a remarkably small proportion of land and provide over 100% of the UK's demand for them.

    If you were restart our agricultural policy from scratch, wiping centuries of custom and tradition, there is no way any government would set up a system like the one we have at the moment.
  • kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
    Right wing populists use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support not illumination.
    Statistics are a lot like bikinis, what they reveal is interesting, what they hide is much more fascinating.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 126,015
    edited January 31

    HYUFD said:

    dixiedean said:
    The Conservatives are never going to beat Reform when half the party seems happy for Reform to win. They have to fight them!
    No most Conservatives want to get rid of Starmer's useless government above all.

    They don't disagree with Reform anywhere near as much as they do with Labour on most issues, other than Tories are a bit more soft Brexit and Reform a bit more hard Brexit
    That attitude will see you eaten alive by Reform.
    Most Tories would rather even that than see Labour win another majority.

    Though most likely they largely hold their current softer Brexit vote.

    Indeed Electoral Calculus now forecasts 138 Conservative seats to 82 Reform MPs in a hung parliament even though Reform lead on average poll rating by 24% to 22.5% for the Conservatives

    https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305
    viewcode said:

    viewcode said:

    Sandpit said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    So each mimunim wage worker brings an average of 1.7 dependents with them?
    Why minimum wage, some will be doctors? Can you even get a visa for a minimum wage job regardless of sector? Why not think before assuming things can be true?
    For added fun.

    1) Companies can basically issue visas
    2) The value of such visas is into 5 figures - a legitimate work visa for the UK
    3) Multiple companies have been caught lying and cheating - selling visas and screwing over the prospective workers.
    4) How much is certifying such a company to be allowed to issue visas worth?

    Follow the money.

    Hey, but it's furriners that are getting bilked. Good for balance of payments, no?
    Pause

    Pause

    The government has just given up on governing... :(

    (PS where's your Blob article?)
    The Blob article was impounded by a Quango, and is in enforced review for the next 27 years, pending its alignment with the policies of Good Government.

    Didn't you know about the outsourcing of visas? https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-68337205
    The number of things I don't know is very large. It's one of the reasons why I come here. So I can find out what is happening. Even when it's insane.
    I aspire to be Wonko The Sane.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 74,892

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Sheep are also ideal for rearing on land unsuitable for arable or dairy.
    Alongside solar panels.
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 12,969
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    I think that highlights two things:

    1 - The Usonians always overdo everything.
    2 - The limit we have here - preference for a candidate with a preferred attribute if both are equally eligible - is as far as we can justifiably go in hiring decisions. *

    * There are others things, such as eg peer networks of women, targeted training schemes, which are worth considering. But we don't generally have things here such as the Beta Phi Kappa type mafias founded in Universities (afaik).

    I think there's an element of truth to that, but, also, that's a complaint in a lawsuit. We need to await the court's judgment. There are plenty of bogus lawsuits filed, e.g. Trump's suit over the Steele dossier ( https://www.reuters.com/world/donald-trump-fails-pay-360000-legal-bill-over-failed-steele-dossier-lawsuit-uk-2025-01-29/ ) or his suit against the New York Times ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-67964672 ).
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Sheep are also ideal for rearing on land unsuitable for arable or dairy.
    This is the trouble with sheep. They take up a very large proportion of the UK's agricultural land, depend on large subsidies, and contribute little to overall calorie consumption. That compares with cereals, which take up a remarkably small proportion of land and provide over 100% of the UK's demand for them.

    If you were restart our agricultural policy from scratch, wiping centuries of custom and tradition, there is no way any government would set up a system like the one we have at the moment.
    Sheep are really a default way of keeping land tidy. Von Neumann machines applied to lawn mowing.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,135

    kinabalu said:

    Taz said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Taz said:

    Suspect Reform will be jumping on stuff like this as it is just not sustainable. Should say that the figures don't correlate, as the dependant could be from previous year, but it is the picture it paints. Figures from Home Office visa tables.


    Karl Williams
    @MalvernianKarl
    ·
    17h
    Apropos of nothing, in the first six months of 2024, we gave out 1,063 health & care visas to workers from Zimbabwe. They brought with them 10,670 dependants. That's 10 dependants for every (likely minimum wage) social care worker.

    They certainly should be all over this. All to save a few quid an hour. 10 dependents per person. What a crock. Absolute insanity. Well done Tory Party you deserve to be out of power for a long term. How much will these dependents cost the taxpayer.
    What sort of system allows someone to bring in 10 dependents ?!?
    I'd love to see the source for this, because I very much doubt the numbers are as presented.
    He posts the link in the twitter thread. It is on a dataset on a govt website. I cannot link to it at work. Perhaps someone else can ?
    My guess is the dependents are mostly linked to workers who came earlier, presumably in greater numbers. It's not credible that these 1000 workers all had 10 dependents, as is claimed here. Or perhaps the dependents are related to a bigger group, eg all visa holders from Zimbabwe. AIUI it's generally quite hard to bringin dependents other than spouses and children, and it seems unlikely that these workers had 9 children on average. But I stand ready to be corrected.
    Right, I have looked at the data. It's pretty obvious the dependents are arriving with a delay of a few months or quarters, as you might expect. The number of workers arriving has fallen from 6,494 in Q1 2023 to 451 in Q3 2024. The number of dependents only peaked in Q1 2024 at 8,475 and since then has fallen to 1,772. Over the 2023 to 2024 period as a whole there were 20,238 workers and 37,341 dependents, a ratio of less than 2:1 and a much more plausible looking number.
    Don't believe everything you read on X.
    I recommend my default assumption for any assertion or piece of data that supports a right wing populist sentiment. It's wrong or grossly misleading.
    Right wing populists use statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost - for support not illumination.
    I don't think that's limited to right wing populists, to be fair.

    People with limited grasp of data (or morals) will misuse figures in a way that suits their agenda, whatever their political inclination.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 53,098

    Eabhal said:

    l

    Taz said:

    A tenth of British Farmland to be repurposed for net zero

    Solar farms, tree planting and wildlife habitats to replace food production.

    Meanwhile from 2022 to 2032 our population will grow by 5 Million people.

    ‘Brutal Budget has hurt farming’
    Tom Bradshaw, president of the NFU, said it was “imperative this framework does not further restrict farmers’ ability to produce the nation’s food”.
    “Over the past 18 months, the UK farming industry has taken a battering,” he said. “Volatile input costs, commodity prices on the floor in some sectors, a reduction in direct payments, one of the wettest periods in decades, and a brutal Budget delivered by this Government. All have left their mark and have put homegrown food production under serious pressure.”
    The Government believes food production can be largely maintained at current levels by focusing on removing only the least productive land. About 20 per cent of England’s farmed land produces just 3 per cent of total calories, in areas where subsidies have historically accounted for 90 per cent of farm incomes.


    https://archive.ph/CXjt0

    It's disgusting, and should and will be reversed.
    Farmers getting 90% of their income from subsidies is totally disgusting.

    Any other industry, and they'd have been shut down decades ago by the Thatcher government.
    Well apart from the public sector which also gets its funding from the government.

    Which is effectively what managing unprofitable land use is in this country.

    The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.

    Whether having Upper Swaledale so covered is a good idea is open for debate.
    “The farmers are being funded so that tourists can see sheep in fields surrounded by dry stone walls.”

    I’m getting more sheep, and it’s not for benefit of tourists, but the UK food chain because I believe in eat local. We don’t get any tourists driving past taking pictures of sheep.

    Nor is for the love of sheep - though maybe I should phrase it different than that. Sheep are boring. They are also weird and stupid, like they give birth and stand there stunned sometimes doing nothing like they didn’t even know they were pregnant or a clue what’s happening or want any part in parenting. 🐑🤦‍♀️
    I'm going to try and calculate what proportion of UK calorie consumption is British lamb & mutton. I'd guess 0.5%.
    That's a marketing issue. Sheep are excellent food, especially considering the amount of grass in their diet.
    Is it vegan???
  • TazTaz Posts: 16,827
    biggles said:

    Taz said:

    I quite like “the Reform”.

    https://x.com/luketryl/status/1885272533269680266

    We tend to focus on individual polls which look interesting - but much more significant and easily missed - I think this is the first week when *every* poll released (from across 7 pollsters) has had the Reform ahead of the Conservatives.

    Like Bucks Fizz are now The Fizz.
    Why did Buck leave?
    Bobby G left to pursue other options. He said ‘it’s no big deal to take a chance against the odds’
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 53,305
    MattW said:

    Sandpit said:

    I found what i was looking for earlier. The actual complaint from the lawsuit against the FAA.

    https://x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

    I think that highlights two things:

    1 - The Usonians always overdo everything.
    2 - The limit we have here - preference for a candidate with a preferred attribute if both are equally eligible - is as far as we can justifiably go in hiring decisions. *

    * There are others things, such as eg peer networks of women, targeted training schemes, which are worth considering. But we don't generally have things here such as the Beta Phi Kappa type mafias founded in Universities (afaik).

    The Americans love solution that consist of a patch on top of a patch on top of a patch on top of a problem. Problem not fixed? Well this patch will fix it....

    Which is how cost plus contracting came to be a default for government. Read the FAR regulations at your risk. Even a Lensman from EE Smith could lose his sanity.
This discussion has been closed.