The Kemi charge begins, Tories up 3% to 19% as she reaches base camp on her way to the peak of a Tory landslide in 2029 as she squeezes Labour and the LDs. Reform advance halted before Farage can reach 30% too
Yes, the highest Conservative rating for this pollster since, since, the end of last month.
So basically she's back at base camp having fallen down the mountain a bit further and climbed back to where she started. Kudos Kemi.
Tracking the changes from that poll at the end of April and it's Labour down two, the Conservatives down one, Reform up three, the Greens up two and the SNP down one (the end April poll rounded up to 101%, today's poll is 100%).
They're building a block of flats next door, they're currently doing the works to build a basement car park. It's noisy. Is it going to get noisier or will this be the worst it gets?
I'm not sure. However I would say have a look at the start and finish time hours fir work (probably 8am-5pm ish M-F) in their Planning Conditions, and other restrictions eg wheel washing facilities to control dust, mud on road etc.
If you want to make a complaint, you will need a contemporaneous diary for evidence (the Council will tell you to make one before they enforce beyond having a quiet word), so start noting any problems now.
Ring doorbell, or surveillance camera that catches it incidentally, footage can help.
I trust that will be secure, accessible cycle / mobility aid parking as part of the basement !
Every opposition leader who led their party into government though, Starmer, Cameron and Blair led on the best PM rating since Thatcher.
Some encouragement for Badenoch that 60% of current Conservative voters prefer her to Farage and Labour, LD and Green voters also prefer her to Farage
Farage does lead as best PM in some polls though. This YouGov has got a lot of attention, but it’s just one pollster
Does suggest the potential for anti Reform tactical voting at least, even for Tories in Tory v Reform seats
The tories best hope in tactical voting is for Reform to back them in LD fights in the Home Counties but there is no sign at all of that being remotely likely. Tories are generally dreadful at attracting tactical votes, so it would be interesting to see if it starts happening at all where they face Reform - locally i shall therefore keep an eye on NW Norfolk and Broadland/Fakenham both of which will be straight Ref vs Con fights (Con held) with a healthy LD vote to try and squeeze (I figure LD is the most likely source of these potential tacticals if they are to appear)
The Tories want Reform tactical votes in LD held southern seats which are still too posh for Reform to breakthrough to win and Labour and LD tactical votes in seats like mine, Brentwood and Ongar, where Reform were second to the Tories at the GE
Want versus get though. They've always had problems attracting tacticals, a few LD types aside
33% of LD voters and 22% of Labour voters now say they would tactically vote Tory if only Reform or the Conservatives could win their constituency.
That does give them some potential then. Locally, for example, it might make NW Norfolk, Broadland, Mid Norfolk more likely to be Tory holds vs Reform in tight contests (but will Labour conclude they cannot win ftom second?) but SW Norfolk and South Norfolk Labour will think they can win as they hold them - they have no chance of a hold in either of course.
SW Norfolk is going to be fascinating. The Bagge 12% will be crucial. I actually think without poison Liz it leans Tory again
In reality most people in most constituencies don't vote tactically as long as all the candidates are available. You get a few exceptions in, usually, well-educated seats, like Ed Davey getting most of the Labour vote in Kingston & Surbiton in 2001 and other elections since then.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
Every opposition leader who led their party into government though, Starmer, Cameron and Blair led on the best PM rating since Thatcher.
Some encouragement for Badenoch that 60% of current Conservative voters prefer her to Farage and Labour, LD and Green voters also prefer her to Farage
Farage does lead as best PM in some polls though. This YouGov has got a lot of attention, but it’s just one pollster
Does suggest the potential for anti Reform tactical voting at least, even for Tories in Tory v Reform seats
The tories best hope in tactical voting is for Reform to back them in LD fights in the Home Counties but there is no sign at all of that being remotely likely. Tories are generally dreadful at attracting tactical votes, so it would be interesting to see if it starts happening at all where they face Reform - locally i shall therefore keep an eye on NW Norfolk and Broadland/Fakenham both of which will be straight Ref vs Con fights (Con held) with a healthy LD vote to try and squeeze (I figure LD is the most likely source of these potential tacticals if they are to appear)
The Tories want Reform tactical votes in LD held southern seats which are still too posh for Reform to breakthrough to win and Labour and LD tactical votes in seats like mine, Brentwood and Ongar, where Reform were second to the Tories at the GE
Want versus get though. They've always had problems attracting tacticals, a few LD types aside
33% of LD voters and 22% of Labour voters now say they would tactically vote Tory if only Reform or the Conservatives could win their constituency.
That does give them some potential then. Locally, for example, it might make NW Norfolk, Broadland, Mid Norfolk more likely to be Tory holds vs Reform in tight contests (but will Labour conclude they cannot win ftom second?) but SW Norfolk and South Norfolk Labour will think they can win as they hold them - they have no chance of a hold in either of course.
SW Norfolk is going to be fascinating. The Bagge 12% will be crucial. I actually think without poison Liz it leans Tory again
In reality most people in most constituencies don't vote tactically as long as all the candidates are available. You get a few exceptions in, usually, well-educated seats, like Ed Davey getting most of the Labour vote in Kingston & Surbiton in 2001 and other elections since then.
Maybe, maybe. Or maybe tribalism is merely a construction of who is in play in any constituency - three ways are rare, as are 'second place fairly equal'(less so in 2024 for sure)
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
Karl Popper - “If we wish to remain human, then there is one price we must pay: it is to live in a society that has freedom, and therefore a measure of insecurity.”
John Dewey - The quest for certainty is a quest for relief from the pangs of doubt and the shocks of change. It is not the quest for truth.
John Stewart Mill - A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes — will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Or RochdalePioneers - Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos.
You think Liberals are anarchists?
Liberals created the modern welfare state. Education. Medical Care. Not "sort it out yourselves"
There's a difference between liberal and anarchy, though liberals lean more into the anarchy/chaos side of the divide than the authoritarian/order side of it, yes.
There is a difference between liberal welfare and socialist welfare. Between support for those who need it as a safety net, which is liberal, and compelling everyone to do it without a choice, which is illiberal.
A Swedish style voluntary furlough for those who wish to shut down because they think its the right thing for them to do, is a liberal solution over the authoritarian you must shut down because we want order that we had and you advocate.
Sense of proportion though. Our lockdown was hardly the gulag.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
Karl Popper - “If we wish to remain human, then there is one price we must pay: it is to live in a society that has freedom, and therefore a measure of insecurity.”
John Dewey - The quest for certainty is a quest for relief from the pangs of doubt and the shocks of change. It is not the quest for truth.
John Stewart Mill - A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes — will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Or RochdalePioneers - Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos.
You think Liberals are anarchists?
Liberals created the modern welfare state. Education. Medical Care. Not "sort it out yourselves"
There's a difference between liberal and anarchy, though liberals lean more into the anarchy/chaos side of the divide than the authoritarian/order side of it, yes.
There is a difference between liberal welfare and socialist welfare. Between support for those who need it as a safety net, which is liberal, and compelling everyone to do it without a choice, which is illiberal.
A Swedish style voluntary furlough for those who wish to shut down because they think its the right thing for them to do, is a liberal solution over the authoritarian you must shut down because we want order that we had and you advocate.
Sense of proportion though. Our lockdown was hardly the gulag.
It was against the law to leave your home without good reason, or to see your family. It was a form of house arrest that was worse than what convicted criminals with ankle bracelets face.
That you think its OK, speaks about your sensibilities, but then you've never claimed to be liberal.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
My nephew has a place at Columbia for an LSE/Columbia combined international studies MA/MPhil. He is an outstanding student, just about to graduate from Cambridge, most likely with a first in Asian studies and Mandarin. Since he is C1 fluent in Mandarin, as well bilingual in French and English, he pretty much can choose where he goes and there are several other places offering scholarships.
The Americans effectively turning away such a student will be "interesting".
He was ejected from Brum pride at the weekend for a placard condemning past Police Homophobia. The Police, being very thin skinned, turfed him out.
TERFed him out, Shirley?
I’m trying to work out on what basis you could say that a placard condemning past homophobia at pride event, was problematic.
What next - arresting women for carrying placards condemning past misogynistic behaviour by the police?
I was soooooo sooooo tempted to say TERFed, but resisted.
I regret that decision.
The Police can be somewhat thin skinned as to their past failings and if people fail the attitude test they will fuck with them. Still, not as bad as in the seventies and early eighties where woe betide you if you were out in Brum and were Irish or Black.
He might mean "ethnic minorities are more likely to use cannabis", or at least certain ethnic minorities. I presume there are statistics on this - these figures show that some ethnic groups use illicit drugs at above-average rates, and others at below-average rates. He might also mean that ethnic minorities are more likely to have some encounter with the police which leads to them being arrested for whatever the police can stick on them, and cannabis possession is one such thing.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Bart is assuming people would have a choice though
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
Karl Popper - “If we wish to remain human, then there is one price we must pay: it is to live in a society that has freedom, and therefore a measure of insecurity.”
John Dewey - The quest for certainty is a quest for relief from the pangs of doubt and the shocks of change. It is not the quest for truth.
John Stewart Mill - A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes — will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Or RochdalePioneers - Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos.
You think Liberals are anarchists?
Liberals created the modern welfare state. Education. Medical Care. Not "sort it out yourselves"
There's a difference between liberal and anarchy, though liberals lean more into the anarchy/chaos side of the divide than the authoritarian/order side of it, yes.
There is a difference between liberal welfare and socialist welfare. Between support for those who need it as a safety net, which is liberal, and compelling everyone to do it without a choice, which is illiberal.
A Swedish style voluntary furlough for those who wish to shut down because they think its the right thing for them to do, is a liberal solution over the authoritarian you must shut down because we want order that we had and you advocate.
Sense of proportion though. Our lockdown was hardly the gulag.
It was against the law to leave your home without good reason, or to see your family. It was a form of house arrest that was worse than what convicted criminals with ankle bracelets face.
That you think its OK, speaks about your sensibilities, but then you've never claimed to be liberal.
I remember when they had the different types of lockdown/restrcitions based on the region. We were able to go To Bradford on Avon for a holiday. Wanted to meet up with my sister, she lives in Brum, we had to drive to a place in Worcestershire to meet up as their restrictions were lesser.
Crazy
I’d like to think we’d learn next time. I think we wouldn’t.
My nephew has a place at Columbia for an LSE/Columbia combined international studies MA/MPhil. He is an outstanding student, just about to graduate from Cambridge, most likely with a first in Asian studies and Mandarin. Since he is C1 fluent in Mandarin, as well bilingual in French and English, he pretty much can choose where he goes and there are several other places offering scholarships.
The Americans effectively turning away such a student will be "interesting".
Some people have posited a tourism boycott of the US as a way to punish Trump (for me, personally, I'm motivated more by fear) but I'm wondering now whether it is his intention to isolate the US from the world literally, as well as in foreign policy terms.
Might visiting the US, and talking to Americans, be seen as an act that helps those resisting Trump's authoritarianism?
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Bart is assuming people would have a choice though
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Bart is assuming people would have a choice though
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
At our place some of the projects we worked on and products we supplied went towards helping the fight against CoVID. Both food supply and vaccine manufacture.
We had a ‘voluntary’ 10% pay cut, and had to take an extra two days off a month.
Effectively I had to work for 10% of my salary. Fucking joke.
It depends whether you think Americans should get priority in American institutions over better candidates from other countries. I'm guessing a high percentage of Americans would say yes, however "stupid" that might be from an internationalist point of view.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Brave Sir Boris was hardly some communist Dictator, he imposed lockdowns for your safety and my safety. He had to impose legal sanction for breaching lockdowns by casual and cavalier citizens who couldn't be trusted to do the right thing (including himself as it turned out).
Has anyone written a book or essay on the subject of how both the right and the left supported closing asylums in the 1960s/70s/80s, albeit for completely different reasons? It's a fascinating subject imo.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
My nephew has a place at Columbia for an LSE/Columbia combined international studies MA/MPhil. He is an outstanding student, just about to graduate from Cambridge, most likely with a first in Asian studies and Mandarin. Since he is C1 fluent in Mandarin, as well bilingual in French and English, he pretty much can choose where he goes and there are several other places offering scholarships.
The Americans effectively turning away such a student will be "interesting".
Some people have posited a tourism boycott of the US as a way to punish Trump (for me, personally, I'm motivated more by fear) but I'm wondering now whether it is his intention to isolate the US from the world literally, as well as in foreign policy terms.
Might visiting the US, and talking to Americans, be seen as an act that helps those resisting Trump's authoritarianism?
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
Some of us have been banging that drum for a while, including explaining why the rules of the Triple Lock did something a bit silly in response to the Ukraine War Inflation Spike. But due to a combination of factors the politics got impossible:
1 Generation "My children should fund my retirement more generously than I funded my parents'" still having massive political clout 2 Clive Dunn, St Winifred's School Choir and the Werther's Original adverts 3 The impossibility of distilling the issue down to a three word slogan.
George W. Bush earned an MBA from a pretty good school (Harvard); Mitt Romney earned, simultaneously, a law degree and an MBA, from the same school. "Romney wanted to pursue a business career, but his father advised him that a Juris Doctor degree would be valuable to his career even if he never practiced law.[59][60] As a result, he enrolled in the recently created four-year joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School.[61] He readily adapted to the business school's pragmatic, data-driven case study method of teaching.[60] Living in a Belmont, Massachusetts, house with Ann and their two children, his social experience differed from that of most of his classmates.[50][60] He was nonideological and did not involve himself in the political issues of the day.[50][60] Romney graduated from Harvard in 1975. He was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top 5% of his business school class and received his Juris Doctor degree cum laude for ranking in the top third of his law school class." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Early_life_and_education
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
No idea about this one, but just to point out that no popular newspaper/twitter claim about a court or tribunal judgement should be taken as accurate unless and until you have seen and read the judgment. The evidence that journalists don't read judgments is quite strong. Link to judgment anyone?
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Brave Sir Boris was hardly some communist Dictator, he imposed lockdowns for your safety and my safety. He had to impose legal sanction for breaching lockdowns by casual and cavalier citizens who couldn't be trusted to do the right thing (including himself as it turned out).
Boris was not infallible. He made a horrendous mistake, and was badly advised, mainly it seems by Cummings ironically who seems to have been the one pushing hardest for lockdowns before then going for his own eye test.
He did not have to do anything he did. He made a choice. The buck stops there. It was the wrong choice, while Sweden who were treated as pariahs made the right choice.
Sadly it seems too many have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from that time.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. I thought Boris was doing the right thing at the time. I was wrong. Sweden in hindsight were entirely right and we were wrong.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Bart is assuming people would have a choice though
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
Sounds like you need a better employer.
More Brits proportionately lost their job than Swedes over the course of the pandemic.
"Dominic Cummings says Kemi Badenoch will be ousted within a year
Boris Johnson's former top aide - who played a key role in the 2016 Brexit campaign - also told Sky News he has advised Nigel Farage on how to become prime minister."
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
No idea about this one, but just to point out that no popular newspaper/twitter claim about a court or tribunal judgement should be taken as accurate unless and until you have seen and read the judgment. The evidence that journalists don't read judgments is quite strong. Link to judgment anyone?
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
You do know the WFP was per household not to each pensioner
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
Well what a shock 😂😂
Did he like chicken nuggets in the UK too.
Keep him here, I’m sure he will be a net contributor 🤔
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
No idea about this one, but just to point out that no popular newspaper/twitter claim about a court or tribunal judgement should be taken as accurate unless and until you have seen and read the judgment. The evidence that journalists don't read judgments is quite strong. Link to judgment anyone?
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
No idea about this one, but just to point out that no popular newspaper/twitter claim about a court or tribunal judgement should be taken as accurate unless and until you have seen and read the judgment. The evidence that journalists don't read judgments is quite strong. Link to judgment anyone?
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
It depends whether you think Americans should get priority in American institutions over better candidates from other countries. I'm guessing a high percentage of Americans would say yes, however "stupid" that might be from an internationalist point of view.
Does it ? Foreign students subsidise US universities as they do ours. Trump isn't proposing to make up that funding. And cutting science research funding will do nothing for increasing spaces for 'citizens', either.
It's incoherent, ideologically driven nonsense.
And if you "think Americans should get priority in American institutions" - daft as that might be - there are far less damaging ways of accomplishing that.
Karl Popper - “If we wish to remain human, then there is one price we must pay: it is to live in a society that has freedom, and therefore a measure of insecurity.”
John Dewey - The quest for certainty is a quest for relief from the pangs of doubt and the shocks of change. It is not the quest for truth.
John Stewart Mill - A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes — will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Or RochdalePioneers - Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos.
You think Liberals are anarchists?
Liberals created the modern welfare state. Education. Medical Care. Not "sort it out yourselves"
There's a difference between liberal and anarchy, though liberals lean more into the anarchy/chaos side of the divide than the authoritarian/order side of it, yes.
There is a difference between liberal welfare and socialist welfare. Between support for those who need it as a safety net, which is liberal, and compelling everyone to do it without a choice, which is illiberal.
A Swedish style voluntary furlough for those who wish to shut down because they think its the right thing for them to do, is a liberal solution over the authoritarian you must shut down because we want order that we had and you advocate.
Sense of proportion though. Our lockdown was hardly the gulag.
It was against the law to leave your home without good reason, or to see your family. It was a form of house arrest that was worse than what convicted criminals with ankle bracelets face.
That you think its OK, speaks about your sensibilities, but then you've never claimed to be liberal.
I was ok with the thrust of it (mandated distancing and financial support) but not with all the detail. I disagreed with some of the more intrusive micro measures. Indeed I didn't comply with them all.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
You’re right, however we have a govt that caves the moment it gets awkward due to their spineless backbenchers.
Can you imagine the faux outrage and MPs ‘not coming into politics to do this’ we’d see. It would make the WFA and modest PIP changes reaction seem mild.
Debt and spending is a growing issue we need to tackle. If a govt with over 4 years and a massive majority cannot do this then who can ?
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
You do know the WFP was per household not to each pensioner
The £200 or £300 was spilt to each pensioner
Doesn't that make the comparison even less pensioner-friendly? Should we be comparing the £185 with £150-200 per pensioner?
On the Covid, away from the detail of it, I found it heartening - and a little surprising - how 'we' were prepared to prioritise the collective interest. I know the money helped with that, and the law was wielded too, but still, big picture, I think government did ok and response of the population (esp younger people) was more than ok.
The letter sent by Boris Johnson to every household during the first lockdown was very well written.
And that talk to camera, voice weak with the virus. We saw him at his best and worst during the pandemic.
"It was the best of Boris, it was the worst of Boris..."
‘It is far, far better thing I do than I have ever done.’
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
No idea about this one, but just to point out that no popular newspaper/twitter claim about a court or tribunal judgement should be taken as accurate unless and until you have seen and read the judgment. The evidence that journalists don't read judgments is quite strong. Link to judgment anyone?
Well, the tweet definitely doesn't accurately reflect the decision then.
It's certainly something they could technically claim is true-ish, but it's hugely misleading.
The 'shame' isn't his shame, it's others thinking the event is so shameful, that they won't help him get his ID card in Iraq. He would need an ID card if he wanted to relocate somewhere safer in Iraq, but the suggestion is that doing so would involve going back to the same area that he was fleeing, and isn't a quick process.
The tribunal appears fairly convinced that if he did go back there, he would be at risk of serious violence.
Not a surprise that the press have picked up that aspect of the claim, and ignored the rest, knowing most people won't read the article, or the tribunal decision.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
The issue Labour has is they are the worst Government for public relations that I can remember.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
Infectious diseases are the classic challenge to a liberalism based on individualism. Because one person’s right to roam freely leads to a higher disease risk for everyone else. The way to square the circle is to have such a good public health response that you don’t need to make the choice, but that’s not where we were in March 2020.
We could’ve done more carrot and less stick - that would be the more liberal solution - but the Johnson administration was wedded to stick and disliked carrots.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
You do know the WFP was per household not to each pensioner
The £200 or £300 was spilt to each pensioner
Doesn't that make the comparison even less pensioner-friendly? Should we be comparing the £185 with £150-200 per pensioner?
For single pensioner households they receive either £200 or £300 if they are 80 plus otherwise it is shared at £100 or £150
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
You continue to have this bizarre inability to distinguish political analysis from a PBers personal views.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Brave Sir Boris was hardly some communist Dictator, he imposed lockdowns for your safety and my safety. He had to impose legal sanction for breaching lockdowns by casual and cavalier citizens who couldn't be trusted to do the right thing (including himself as it turned out).
Boris was not infallible. He made a horrendous mistake, and was badly advised, mainly it seems by Cummings ironically who seems to have been the one pushing hardest for lockdowns before then going for his own eye test.
He did not have to do anything he did. He made a choice. The buck stops there. It was the wrong choice, while Sweden who were treated as pariahs made the right choice.
Sadly it seems too many have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from that time.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. I thought Boris was doing the right thing at the time. I was wrong. Sweden in hindsight were entirely right and we were wrong.
And absolutely no sign that the multi million £ inquiry is going to look into whether Sweden was right or not.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
You continue to have this bizarre inability to distinguish political analysis from a PBers personal views.
Not at all, you keep making excuses as to why this won't be done, when there are none.
You act as if multi billion pound annual savings are "only" a piddly amount of money.
But can you come up with better multi billion pound annual savings? Of course not.
You act as if increasing our second biggest spending item in real terms is "small" rather than the major economic burden that it is.
Address reality. Not pretend politics.
Multiple prior governments cut spending on wages and pensions in real terms when they made the argument as to why it was necessary and got reelected.
The idea that increasing it in real terms is a political necessity is a barefaced lie and economic vandalism.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
I suppose the argument is the public dont have to seek reelection every few years to their job regardless of how they've performed with the outcome at least partially down to how the public view factors other than their competency. But public sympathy with MPs will always err on the basement level
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Brave Sir Boris was hardly some communist Dictator, he imposed lockdowns for your safety and my safety. He had to impose legal sanction for breaching lockdowns by casual and cavalier citizens who couldn't be trusted to do the right thing (including himself as it turned out).
Boris was not infallible. He made a horrendous mistake, and was badly advised, mainly it seems by Cummings ironically who seems to have been the one pushing hardest for lockdowns before then going for his own eye test.
He did not have to do anything he did. He made a choice. The buck stops there. It was the wrong choice, while Sweden who were treated as pariahs made the right choice.
Sadly it seems too many have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from that time.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. I thought Boris was doing the right thing at the time. I was wrong. Sweden in hindsight were entirely right and we were wrong.
The Swedes took a punt. If their policy had gone wrong it would have been an absolute blood bath. Far be it for me to defend Johnson, but Sir Boris on the other hand took a cautious approach. With the benefit of hindsight he could be called out as being overcautious, but at the time and under the circumstances he nailed it.
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
I suppose the argument is the public dont have to seek reelection every few years to their job regardless of how they've performed with the outcome at least partially down to how the public view factors other than their competency. But public sympathy with MPs will always err on the basement level
Plenty of the public do lack job security. In fact the average UK employee changes employer every five years.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
The issue Labour has is they are the worst Government for public relations that I can remember.
The change has been social media, and the lack of media gatekeepers who would limit total distortions from opponents.
I suspect it's crept up on a bit, because the Tories were an absolute circus for so long, and there was a feeling that once a slightly more stable/dull government got in, things might change. Instead, I think we're just discovering that the Tories constant infighting masked the fact that politics was changing (and it's even likely that the constant replacement of PMs and ministers, was partly down to that change, rather than being simply self-inflicted).
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
62 seats *without tactical voting* is pretty good for the LDs.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
You continue to have this bizarre inability to distinguish political analysis from a PBers personal views.
Not at all, you keep making excuses as to why this won't be done, when there are none.
You act as if multi billion pound annual savings are "only" a piddly amount of money.
But can you come up with better multi billion pound annual savings? Of course not.
You act as if increasing our second biggest spending item in real terms is "small" rather than the major economic burden that it is.
Address reality. Not pretend politics.
Multiple prior governments cut spending on wages and pensions in real terms when they made the argument as to why it was necessary and got reelected.
The idea that increasing it in real terms is a political necessity is a barefaced lie and economic vandalism.
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
An even bigger potential drop in the Tory vote share?
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
The issue Labour has is they are the worst Government for public relations that I can remember.
The change has been social media, and the lack of media gatekeepers who would limit total distortions from opponents.
I suspect it's crept up on a bit, because the Tories were an absolute circus for so long, and there was a feeling that once a slightly more stable/dull government got in, things might change. Instead, I think we're just discovering that the Tories constant infighting masked the fact that politics was changing (and it's even likely that the constant replacement of PMs and ministers, was partly down to that change, rather than being simply self-inflicted).
I think it started to make an impact in the 2010-15 parliament and at least partly helped the Tories in 2015 get the coalition of chaos message across. The Sindy and Brexit referenda really boosted social media as a driver of opinion, as did the rise of Corbyn and then Trump 1.0.
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
An even bigger potential drop in the Tory vote share?
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Bart is assuming people would have a choice though
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
Sounds like you need a better employer.
More Brits proportionately lost their job than Swedes over the course of the pandemic.
Below a certain level of management most british people need a better employer, they aren't going to get one however. I have worked for a lot of different companies in my life they have all been the same....there is a demarcation line. Be an employee below that line you are disposable....be above the line you can basically do as you like. The vast majority of people fall beneath the line. Before you say it no everyone can't get one of those above the line jobs.
It is not even a public vs private sector thing.....be above the line and fuck up they move you somewhere else probably with a payrise. Be below that line you are getting your p45 for the merest infraction.
To give a personal example I was working for a multinational, they had a supply contract that imposed penalties if we didn't supply in a timely fashion to keep their production line open. We sometimes had to make special deliveries to ensure the penalties didn't occur.
One day took a phone call they had 3 hours worth of supplies before the production line halted. We had stocks only I cant authorize special delivery only my bosses boss. My boss was on holiday. My bosses boss who could authorize it was "in the office" but actually golfing and unreachable so I went ahead and authorized the special delivery which cost 2k for the hgv hire. I saved the company 500k in penalties.
I got a disciplinary hearing for exceeding my authority. The one that could sign for it but was golfing when he was meant to be in the office got no punishment at all
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
We could have put the posthumous tribute to Boris on the 4th plinth
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
62 seats *without tactical voting* is pretty good for the LDs.
And 32 for the Tories "without tactical voting" is pretty damning for the Tories!
NB I think Electoral Calculus uses 2024 GE result as the basis of its "prediction" so any tactical voting in that election is baked in. It's additional tactical voting caused by Reform that is not modelled.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
I suppose the argument is the public dont have to seek reelection every few years to their job regardless of how they've performed with the outcome at least partially down to how the public view factors other than their competency. But public sympathy with MPs will always err on the basement level
True, but when I was working my notice period would be a month or possibly three months. MPs have longer. Without a serious screw up (for which you’d be sacked on the spot in a regular job) they have the life of the parliament.
Karl Popper - “If we wish to remain human, then there is one price we must pay: it is to live in a society that has freedom, and therefore a measure of insecurity.”
John Dewey - The quest for certainty is a quest for relief from the pangs of doubt and the shocks of change. It is not the quest for truth.
John Stewart Mill - A state which dwarfs its men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes — will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished.
Or RochdalePioneers - Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos.
You think Liberals are anarchists?
Liberals created the modern welfare state. Education. Medical Care. Not "sort it out yourselves"
There's a difference between liberal and anarchy, though liberals lean more into the anarchy/chaos side of the divide than the authoritarian/order side of it, yes.
There is a difference between liberal welfare and socialist welfare. Between support for those who need it as a safety net, which is liberal, and compelling everyone to do it without a choice, which is illiberal.
A Swedish style voluntary furlough for those who wish to shut down because they think its the right thing for them to do, is a liberal solution over the authoritarian you must shut down because we want order that we had and you advocate.
Sense of proportion though. Our lockdown was hardly the gulag.
It was against the law to leave your home without good reason, or to see your family. It was a form of house arrest that was worse than what convicted criminals with ankle bracelets face.
That you think its OK, speaks about your sensibilities, but then you've never claimed to be liberal.
I was ok with the thrust of it (mandated distancing and financial support) but not with all the detail. I disagreed with some of the more intrusive micro measures. Indeed I didn't comply with them all.
You didn't care because you are rich, retired, live in a charming house in a charming area, and have the ability to flout rules you determine are for the little people only.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
The issue Labour has is they are the worst Government for public relations that I can remember.
The change has been social media, and the lack of media gatekeepers who would limit total distortions from opponents.
I suspect it's crept up on a bit, because the Tories were an absolute circus for so long, and there was a feeling that once a slightly more stable/dull government got in, things might change. Instead, I think we're just discovering that the Tories constant infighting masked the fact that politics was changing (and it's even likely that the constant replacement of PMs and ministers, was partly down to that change, rather than being simply self-inflicted).
It should have been obvious that the 'Alastair Campbell knows where your wife works and your children go to school' crap was unrepeatable in a post social media world.
Problem with the @MaxPB approach to Covid is that it wilfully ignores psychology and the herd mentality. "No lockdown 1" - by which he means everyone told Go About Your Business.
So how do we enforce that? Weeks before lockdown Tesco abruptly closed their campus to visitors - would Max have sent the police round to enforce them to open up?
People don't carry on as normal when they see the impacts of Covid. The Australian grand prix was pulled due to personnel getting ill. Football & Rugby would have been decimated, putting the fear into people. Lockdown or no lockdown, a lot of people aren't going to work and their employers aren't forcing them to do so. Work From Home happens anyway with increasing speed.
Does Max send in the police to force everyone to be "normal"?
As for "let the NHS be overwhelmed". Again, the psychological impact on people would have been huge. Same with schools where so many staff are sick that the school cannot open. Max sending the police round again? The police are also desperately ill.
It is - sorry to say it - whining bullshit. Nobody liked lockdown. It was a disaster in so many ways. But the alternative to a controlled lockdown was an uncontrolled lockdown. Instead of the authorities managing the situation we have panicked people managing it themselves. Chaos. Which is a bigger economic and social disaster as Covid rips deeper through society.
I think you're the one being ignorant here.
Max never said people should be obliged to go about their business as normal.
There is a world of difference between people choosing to change their actions, and government diktats saying that you're obliged to do so regardless of preference.
An uncontrolled lockdown, a la Sweden, is far better than a controlled one. Let people make their own judgments and use their own common sense and do whatever they individually deem appropriate.
Max is railing against the cost - financially and sociologically - of lockdown. There are two scenarios - we lock down, or we don't lock down. Max posted "In retrospect I wouldn't have done the first lockdown either." which meant that people would absolutely have been going about their lives and catching covid because then he posted "Yup, people live or die at home. Only take COVID patients under 18, everyone else deals with it at home and assesses their own risk." and "We can't halt everyone's lives because there isn't enough healthcare provision, "
Note that last part - "we can't halt people's lives". No lockdown = go about your normal routine. If the government was insistent that this happen then people using their "own common sense" and not going into work is a major problem.
You talked up Sweden endlessly, as if we would have been Sweden. We wouldn't. A wholly different country in terms of geography and population density and travel frequency both from abroad and within. "Just be Sweden" is the "I believe in fairies" solution, where Covid was just the flu and should have been ignored.
In the real world with no lockdown, people start being seriously ill and dying in large numbers, society ceases to function as people choose to "assess their own risk". Chaos. Which is why in any process it is better to have control than no control.
Chaos is better than authoritarianism. Chaos is a good thing. Chaos is how we evolve.
You are the one pretending that Max said that everyone should go about their normal routines, then tilting against a windmill of your own creation.
Authoritarianism means that we are all compelled to act like the lowest common denominator. That it doesn't matter if we want to work, or not. That it doesn't matter if we're sick, or not. That it doesn't matter if we want to go about our normal lives, or not.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we're sick, then stay at home - for a day or two, or a week or two, until we recover. Not five months.
Chaos is far superior. It means we get to choose. If we want to isolate, then we can - for as long as we want to. If we don't, then don't.
Chaos is part of free will. Governments trying to abolish it are authoritarian monstrosities that should be opposed.
A so-called "liberal" democrat ought to understand this.
You are Jason Statham and I claim my 5 dollars!
I think there maybe a terminology problem here.
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
In the context of this particular discussion, the OP clearly meant the latter take on 'chaos'.
Not at all, I meant it in a liberal sense, as we saw in Sweden.
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
The OP being Rochdale, not you.
Fair enough and Rochdale was wrong. Chaos is part of life. Life is chaotic. Order is what authoritarians want, and imposing it is deeply illiberal.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
Brave Sir Boris was hardly some communist Dictator, he imposed lockdowns for your safety and my safety. He had to impose legal sanction for breaching lockdowns by casual and cavalier citizens who couldn't be trusted to do the right thing (including himself as it turned out).
Boris was not infallible. He made a horrendous mistake, and was badly advised, mainly it seems by Cummings ironically who seems to have been the one pushing hardest for lockdowns before then going for his own eye test.
He did not have to do anything he did. He made a choice. The buck stops there. It was the wrong choice, while Sweden who were treated as pariahs made the right choice.
Sadly it seems too many have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from that time.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. I thought Boris was doing the right thing at the time. I was wrong. Sweden in hindsight were entirely right and we were wrong.
And absolutely no sign that the multi million £ inquiry is going to look into whether Sweden was right or not.
Ridiculous.
Sweden has become this totemic exemplar for some in the UK, but they rarely look into the details either: “Sweden” is just a convenient rallying cry. Japan, as I may have mentioned before, had no national lockdowns and a much lower mortality rate than Sweden. We should look at Japan, Taiwan also, first! But, yes, all international comparisons are valuable and we should look at Sweden.
Anyway, I will likely repost my comment of a short while ago periodically until the dimwits in the Cons get it. People are coming for Kemi btw so will look at odds on her departure.
"Has to be the economy. The NI rises, the borrowing, the size of the state. If the Cons are going to have any chance of regaining a significant position in UK politics (they will of course, but when is the question) then they have to ignore the fluff and focus on what all right (small "r") thinking Conservatives believe is the most important issue facing our country, now and always. Which is the economy. And, in a nod to Reform/immigration, the per capita economy."
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
Sometimes, people should realise he says it best, who says nothing at all.
Ronan Keating agrees.
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
From the article it seems that they're getting redundancy at full pay not the statutory minimum, so that is a considerably enhanced pay off.
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
62 seats *without tactical voting* is pretty good for the LDs.
And 32 for the Tories "without tactical voting" is pretty damning for the Tories!
NB I think Electoral Calculus uses 2024 GE result as the basis of its "prediction" so any tactical voting in that election is baked in. It's additional tactical voting caused by Reform that is not modelled.
EC uses (i think) a blend of 2024 and its last MRP as the same %s will see different outcomes after each MRP release (I've been checking)
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
You continue to have this bizarre inability to distinguish political analysis from a PBers personal views.
Not at all, you keep making excuses as to why this won't be done, when there are none.
You act as if multi billion pound annual savings are "only" a piddly amount of money.
But can you come up with better multi billion pound annual savings? Of course not.
You act as if increasing our second biggest spending item in real terms is "small" rather than the major economic burden that it is.
Address reality. Not pretend politics.
Multiple prior governments cut spending on wages and pensions in real terms when they made the argument as to why it was necessary and got reelected.
The idea that increasing it in real terms is a political necessity is a barefaced lie and economic vandalism.
You're still doing it. Weird.
No, you're the one pretending multi billion pound savings are small change.
In pandemics and such i did and will act according to what I think is best for first myself and loved ones and secondly others/society based on my understanding of the situation from the various sources of information available. That will not always meet government guidance or mandate but tough shit, I'm not a drone.
Hard to know if the last YouGov was little more than post-local election froth at this stage.
Interesting that Badenoch has taken a firm line against changing the 2 child cap (only party to do so) and supports extending WFP but not to 'millionaires'
Perhaps and I certainly agree winter fuel payments to higher rate tax payers are hard to defend. I could support winter fuel payments to basic rate taxpayers though I'm not sure what would mean in terms of money and there's an assumption the Government's own software can differentiate between pensioners on different tax rates and codes.
I would add it to pension income and require it to be declared at self assessment and taxed accordingly
Last year the increase in full state pension above inflation was pretty much that in straight numbers:
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80). Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472 Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287 Rise above inflation: £185
And the year before, 2024, the state pension increase was 8.5%. I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
But that is unusual. In normal circumstances, the State Pension only increases slowly (in real terms), so we have to be careful when we suggest abolishing the triple lock will fix the public finances. Over 50 years? Absolutely, it needs to be resolved. Over the next 5, with borrowing costs as high as they are? It's immaterial.
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
We spend more on pensions than almost anything else, including education. Increasing it in real terms without it being earned is insane.
I don't disagree. I'm just pointing out that abolishing the triple lock won't change that spending much at all in the short run. You'd need to make an actual cut, which would be politically insane.
Do what the last Government did with public sector pay. Say that pensions will go up annually by 1% in nominal terms until the public finances are in order.
And Cameron's government was reelected, with an increased majority (an actual one in fact) having implemented that policy on millions of people.
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
I think that would save about £5 billion per annum by the end of the parliament, or 4% of the deficit, while guaranteeing electoral defeat. There's no chance any government would do that.
That's a fantastic economic saving and should be done then. Huge.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
You continue to have this bizarre inability to distinguish political analysis from a PBers personal views.
Not at all, you keep making excuses as to why this won't be done, when there are none.
You act as if multi billion pound annual savings are "only" a piddly amount of money.
But can you come up with better multi billion pound annual savings? Of course not.
You act as if increasing our second biggest spending item in real terms is "small" rather than the major economic burden that it is.
Address reality. Not pretend politics.
Multiple prior governments cut spending on wages and pensions in real terms when they made the argument as to why it was necessary and got reelected.
The idea that increasing it in real terms is a political necessity is a barefaced lie and economic vandalism.
You're still doing it. Weird.
There is a significant gap in knowledge, in general, about the mechanics of implementing political commitments - all of which makes betting on future outcomes interesting. It also allows people like Farage or Trump to make promises that are next to impossible to achieve.
In saying that Trump is getting close to getting his Big Beautiful Bill over the line. But if he falls short, I wonder if it will be him or Kemi looking for a new job.
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
62 seats *without tactical voting* is pretty good for the LDs.
And 32 for the Tories "without tactical voting" is pretty damning for the Tories!
NB I think Electoral Calculus uses 2024 GE result as the basis of its "prediction" so any tactical voting in that election is baked in. It's additional tactical voting caused by Reform that is not modelled.
EC uses (i think) a blend of 2024 and its last MRP as the same %s will see different outcomes after each MRP release (I've been checking)
For example, LDs now start dropping a few tory facing seats despite a UNS swing to them from Tories at about 14 and 22 %s respectively
It has Labour regaining Perry Barr on buttons nationally too
I can see a problem when the suspects ethnicity is ambiguous. For example the police might at first say a suspect is white British because they belive that but later release that actually their ethnicity is Turkish British or Syrian British.
Musk criticises Trump's latest budget as not small state enough. He says: "I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly," Musk said in the interview with CBS Sunday Morning, a clip of which was released by the broadcaster before transmission.
He went on to argue that Trump's plan "increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it".
It is thought that the legislation could increase the deficit - or the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue that it receives - by about $600bn (£444bn) in the next fiscal year.
Furthermore, the bill "undermines the work that the Doge team is doing", Musk said, using the acronym of the cost-cutting advisory body the Department of Government Efficiency...Musk's intervention highlights the ongoing tension within Trump's Republican Party over the tax and spend plans, which faced an uneasy passage through the House due to opposition from different wings of the party.
Long a policy priority of Trump's, the legislation pledges to extend soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during his first administration in 2017, as well as provide an influx of money for defence spending and to fund the president's mass deportations.
The bill also proposes increasing to $4tn the debt ceiling - meaning the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow to pay its bills." https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20q54vn0evo
EMA including latest YouGov poll has Ref on 29%. Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today. Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting. Too complicated - yet really important. So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
62 seats *without tactical voting* is pretty good for the LDs.
And 32 for the Tories "without tactical voting" is pretty damning for the Tories!
NB I think Electoral Calculus uses 2024 GE result as the basis of its "prediction" so any tactical voting in that election is baked in. It's additional tactical voting caused by Reform that is not modelled.
EC uses (i think) a blend of 2024 and its last MRP as the same %s will see different outcomes after each MRP release (I've been checking)
I think that's correct. I've been following the quite abrupt changes following MRP releases. For instance around 8th Feb this year, on the same vote shares, the Ref seats moved from 104 to 169. LDS moved from 73 to 63. It wasn't at all clear why. I might just stop using Electoral Calculus.
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
We did have that discussion a few times early in the pandemic, when it was still far away in China and Italy. We wondered whether the countries that would emerge best from the pandemic would be those that lost more of their oldies to it.
Of course, we then saw that plenty enough younger people ended up in hospital too, and all shut ourselves away voluntarily even before restrictions were brought in.
It's too late now, but obviously we should have let Covid run rife and taken no precautions at all to stop the old and infirm from getting infected. The short-term cost would have been handsomely repaid by the prize of huge savings on the pensions of the millions of dead oldies. We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock. What's not to like?
We did have that discussion a few times early in the pandemic, when it was still far away in China and Italy. We wondered whether the countries that would emerge best from the pandemic would be those that lost more of their oldies to it.
Of course, we then saw that plenty enough younger people ended up in hospital too, and all shut ourselves away voluntarily even before restrictions were brought in.
There's nothing wrong with voluntary shielding.
Its the mandatory restrictions that are illiberal.
Comments
So basically she's back at base camp having fallen down the mountain a bit further and climbed back to where she started. Kudos Kemi.
Tracking the changes from that poll at the end of April and it's Labour down two, the Conservatives down one, Reform up three, the Greens up two and the SNP down one (the end April poll rounded up to 101%, today's poll is 100%).
If you want to make a complaint, you will need a contemporaneous diary for evidence (the Council will tell you to make one before they enforce beyond having a quiet word), so start noting any problems now.
Ring doorbell, or surveillance camera that catches it incidentally, footage can help.
I trust that will be secure, accessible cycle / mobility aid parking as part of the basement !
Humans, their societies and most of the natural world are non-linear systems. Which is sometimes referred to as chaos. See “Chaos Theory”.
Attempting to run humans and their associated constructs as linear systems doesn’t work. Hence the attempts by various absolutist ideologies to reduce human thought and action to linearity - everyone doing exactly the same thing for a given set of preconditions.
I’ve spoken of this to politicians in the past - and they fixate on the word chaos as meaning Mad Max world.
Decriminalise possession in small amounts to help police and ethnic minorities, urges mayor"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/28/sadiq-khan-decriminalise-cannabis-drug-laws/
What does he mean by "help ethnic minorities"?
AOC's Lead Over Chuck Schumer Among:
🟠 All: +20%
🟠 Women: +23%
🟠 Men: +15%
🟠 Under 45: +51%
🟠 Over 45: +10%
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1927389524285354123
Sir Mark Rowley says details should be made public even if it ‘emboldens’ racists"
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/05/28/met-chief-backs-sharing-suspects-ethnicity/
He was arrested a couple of weeks ago too.
He was ejected from Brum pride at the weekend for a placard condemning past Police Homophobia. The Police, being very thin skinned, turfed him out.
https://www.techdirt.com/2025/05/27/from-defenders-to-skeptics-the-sharp-decline-in-young-americans-support-for-free-speech/
Also nice to see places like pakistan, malaysia and indonesia topping the improvement table
WFP: £200 or £300 (300 if one is over 80).
Full State Pension increase (4.1%): £472
Rate of inflation increase (2.5%): £287
Rise above inflation: £185
That people take actions based on their own sensibilities and situations, rather than a dogmatically imposed authoritarianism from Downing Street.
I said we could offer furlough still, but on a voluntary basis (as we did at one stage, and at the Swedes did consistently) and that people who are sick could be at home, people who wish to isolate could be at home, but people who wish to go about their lives could do so.
That's not Mad Max. Its liberal.
That you think its OK, speaks about your sensibilities, but then you've never claimed to be liberal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvwtTv8uE2s
I’m trying to work out on what basis you could say that a placard condemning past homophobia at pride event, was problematic.
What next - arresting women for carrying placards condemning past misogynistic behaviour by the police?
The Americans effectively turning away such a student will be "interesting".
I regret that decision.
The Police can be somewhat thin skinned as to their past failings and if people fail the attitude test they will fuck with them. Still, not as bad as in the seventies and early eighties where woe betide you if you were out in Brum and were Irish or Black.
Accepting chaos, as opposed to imposing lockdowns, is a liberal solution and not Mad Max.
I can't be bothered to do the maths, but the increase over the two years far eclipses the WFP.
If people at the company I worked at during the lockdowns had said no I am not coming in I will take furlough they would have been sacked simple as that, nor would they have allowed us to work from home.
Its all well and good saying make it voluntary but if taking the choice means you lose your job most people don't actually have the ability to make the choice. Naturally I have no doubt senior and middle management would have been allowed to isolate and work from home lower management and grunts not a chance.
Crazy
I’d like to think we’d learn next time. I think we wouldn’t.
Might visiting the US, and talking to Americans, be seen as an act that helps those resisting Trump's authoritarianism?
"Farage won’t break Britain’s doom loop
He promises the impossible
Mary Harrington"
https://unherd.com/2025/05/britain-faces-deepening-chaos/
We had a ‘voluntary’ 10% pay cut, and had to take an extra two days off a month.
Effectively I had to work for 10% of my salary. Fucking joke.
An Iraqi asylum seeker has won the right to stay in UK after claiming shame of a extra-marital affair has prevented him from getting a new ID card so he can return
1 Generation "My children should fund my retirement more generously than I funded my parents'" still having massive political clout
2 Clive Dunn, St Winifred's School Choir and the Werther's Original adverts
3 The impossibility of distilling the issue down to a three word slogan.
https://www.politico.eu/article/britain-uk-defeated-tory-mps-struggle-adjust-civilian-life/
"Romney wanted to pursue a business career, but his father advised him that a Juris Doctor degree would be valuable to his career even if he never practiced law.[59][60] As a result, he enrolled in the recently created four-year joint Juris Doctor/Master of Business Administration program coordinated between Harvard Law School and Harvard Business School.[61] He readily adapted to the business school's pragmatic, data-driven case study method of teaching.[60] Living in a Belmont, Massachusetts, house with Ann and their two children, his social experience differed from that of most of his classmates.[50][60] He was nonideological and did not involve himself in the political issues of the day.[50][60] Romney graduated from Harvard in 1975. He was named a Baker Scholar for graduating in the top 5% of his business school class and received his Juris Doctor degree cum laude for ranking in the top third of his law school class."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitt_Romney#Early_life_and_education
He did not have to do anything he did. He made a choice. The buck stops there. It was the wrong choice, while Sweden who were treated as pariahs made the right choice.
Sadly it seems too many have learnt nothing and forgotten nothing from that time.
I'm man enough to admit I was wrong. I thought Boris was doing the right thing at the time. I was wrong. Sweden in hindsight were entirely right and we were wrong.
More Brits proportionately lost their job than Swedes over the course of the pandemic.
Boris Johnson's former top aide - who played a key role in the 2016 Brexit campaign - also told Sky News he has advised Nigel Farage on how to become prime minister."
https://news.sky.com/story/nigel-farage-could-definitely-become-pm-if-he-listens-to-me-dominic-cummings-says-13375541
Health is increasing much more quickly, from a higher base. I don't think you can have serious attempt at bringing spending down without freezing that spending. Everything else is broadly flat or decreasing, as a proportion, since the 1980s.
"Ex-Conservative MP and Brexit Minister Steve Baker, who represented Wycombe for 14 years, said it was “nowhere near large enough,” adding: “If we want MPs to exercise leadership, there has to be some kind of safety net that you fall into if you lose your seat.”
Baker is calling for one year’s redundancy pay for ex-MPs “to get us over the horrible process of actually getting a job when you’re well-known.”"
The £200 or £300 was spilt to each pensioner
Did he like chicken nuggets in the UK too.
Keep him here, I’m sure he will be a net contributor 🤔
If its good enough for people working for a living, its good enough for people who aren't.
Well that’s a surprise.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4gew8zvxwwo
I quite like Steve Baker, even if I’m not in line with his politics.
But when the politicians pass laws to legislate on what the plebs can get as a pay off then they need to get the same.
Foreign students subsidise US universities as they do ours. Trump isn't proposing to make up that funding.
And cutting science research funding will do nothing for increasing spaces for 'citizens', either.
It's incoherent, ideologically driven nonsense.
And if you "think Americans should get priority in American institutions" - daft as that might be - there are far less damaging ways of accomplishing that.
Can you imagine the faux outrage and MPs ‘not coming into politics to do this’ we’d see. It would make the WFA and modest PIP changes reaction seem mild.
Debt and spending is a growing issue we need to tackle. If a govt with over 4 years and a massive majority cannot do this then who can ?
‘It is far, far better thing I do than I have ever done.’
Which isn’t a very high bar tbf.
I'd like you to name any better economic cuts than that which would save so many billions. Without supposed efficiencies.
And Cameron's government was re-elected despite implementing that policy on millions of people.
The 'shame' isn't his shame, it's others thinking the event is so shameful, that they won't help him get his ID card in Iraq. He would need an ID card if he wanted to relocate somewhere safer in Iraq, but the suggestion is that doing so would involve going back to the same area that he was fleeing, and isn't a quick process.
The tribunal appears fairly convinced that if he did go back there, he would be at risk of serious violence.
Not a surprise that the press have picked up that aspect of the claim, and ignored the rest, knowing most people won't read the article, or the tribunal decision.
We could’ve done more carrot and less stick - that would be the more liberal solution - but the Johnson administration was wedded to stick and disliked carrots.
Ridiculous.
You act as if multi billion pound annual savings are "only" a piddly amount of money.
But can you come up with better multi billion pound annual savings? Of course not.
You act as if increasing our second biggest spending item in real terms is "small" rather than the major economic burden that it is.
Address reality. Not pretend politics.
Multiple prior governments cut spending on wages and pensions in real terms when they made the argument as to why it was necessary and got reelected.
The idea that increasing it in real terms is a political necessity is a barefaced lie and economic vandalism.
But public sympathy with MPs will always err on the basement level
We'd even have been able to keep the WFA and the triple lock.
What's not to like?
Electoral Calculus transforms that to a majority of 34 seats.
Note that this is not a prediction in spite of the heading. It is a snapshot of today.
Also note that Electoral Calculus has given up on modelling tactical voting.
Too complicated - yet really important.
So this table is pretty worthless! But amusing.
I suspect it's crept up on a bit, because the Tories were an absolute circus for so long, and there was a feeling that once a slightly more stable/dull government got in, things might change. Instead, I think we're just discovering that the Tories constant infighting masked the fact that politics was changing (and it's even likely that the constant replacement of PMs and ministers, was partly down to that change, rather than being simply self-inflicted).
It is not even a public vs private sector thing.....be above the line and fuck up they move you somewhere else probably with a payrise. Be below that line you are getting your p45 for the merest infraction.
To give a personal example I was working for a multinational, they had a supply contract that imposed penalties if we didn't supply in a timely fashion to keep their production line open. We sometimes had to make special deliveries to ensure the penalties didn't occur.
One day took a phone call they had 3 hours worth of supplies before the production line halted. We had stocks only I cant authorize special delivery only my bosses boss. My boss was on holiday. My bosses boss who could authorize it was "in the office" but actually golfing and unreachable so I went ahead and authorized the special delivery which cost 2k for the hgv hire. I saved the company 500k in penalties.
I got a disciplinary hearing for exceeding my authority. The one that could sign for it but was golfing when he was meant to be in the office got no punishment at all
And 32 for the Tories "without tactical voting" is pretty damning for the Tories!
NB I think Electoral Calculus uses 2024 GE result as the basis of its "prediction" so any tactical voting in that election is baked in. It's additional tactical voting caused by Reform that is not modelled.
So your opinion doesn't really count.
Sweden held its own multi-million kronor inquiry and they broadly felt they got the approach right, although they concluded they should have done more in the early stages: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apa.16535 Sweden did put more legal restrictions on as the pandemic continued and concern has been expressed that their mortality was higher than neighbours, e.g. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/apm.13112 and https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/1403494820980264
https://ora.ox.ac.uk/objects/uuid:6419c500-4ec6-4146-ac0a-132aa8fb8395/files/rbn9997176 tried to do some modelling in a comparison of Sweden, Denmark and the UK. They suggest that the mortality rate would have been twice as high in the UK with a Swedish response and the Swedish morality would have been half as much with a UK response.
"Has to be the economy. The NI rises, the borrowing, the size of the state. If the Cons are going to have any chance of regaining a significant position in UK politics (they will of course, but when is the question) then they have to ignore the fluff and focus on what all right (small "r") thinking Conservatives believe is the most important issue facing our country, now and always. Which is the economy. And, in a nod to Reform/immigration, the per capita economy."
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/5212784#Comment_5212784
"won't change that spending much at all"
In saying that Trump is getting close to getting his Big Beautiful Bill over the line. But if he falls short, I wonder if it will be him or Kemi looking for a new job.
It has Labour regaining Perry Barr on buttons nationally too
"I was disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly," Musk said in the interview with CBS Sunday Morning, a clip of which was released by the broadcaster before transmission.
He went on to argue that Trump's plan "increases the budget deficit, not just decreases it".
It is thought that the legislation could increase the deficit - or the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue that it receives - by about $600bn (£444bn) in the next fiscal year.
Furthermore, the bill "undermines the work that the Doge team is doing", Musk said, using the acronym of the cost-cutting advisory body the Department of Government Efficiency...Musk's intervention highlights the ongoing tension within Trump's Republican Party over the tax and spend plans, which faced an uneasy passage through the House due to opposition from different wings of the party.
Long a policy priority of Trump's, the legislation pledges to extend soon-to-expire tax cuts passed during his first administration in 2017, as well as provide an influx of money for defence spending and to fund the president's mass deportations.
The bill also proposes increasing to $4tn the debt ceiling - meaning the limit on the amount of money the government can borrow to pay its bills."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c20q54vn0evo
For instance around 8th Feb this year, on the same vote shares, the Ref seats moved from 104 to 169. LDS moved from 73 to 63. It wasn't at all clear why.
I might just stop using Electoral Calculus.
Of course, we then saw that plenty enough younger people ended up in hospital too, and all shut ourselves away voluntarily even before restrictions were brought in.
Its the mandatory restrictions that are illiberal.