I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
We couldn't. So we didn't invest whilst all of our competitors did. Which is why our economy is in such a mess.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
Compare and contrast with Norway, which did invest from revenue into a capital fund.
Yes and squandered all Scotland's oil to refurbish London and the South East whilst closing all industry in the north.
Yes the North Sea Oil and Privatisation receipts of the 1980s were used as revenue to permit tax cuts and consumer spending, while neglecting infrastructure investment. Simultaneously they inflated the price of Sterling and made much UK manufacturing less competitive.
All developed countries have struggled with the shift away from manufacturing based jobs and economies, but we seem to have managed it worse than most.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
I'd be interested to know if there is published data on that, especially across regions.
I can't think of a performance reason why it would need to be Fluorescent not LED - it's not as if they haven't had time to go pp since LED became economically viable.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Not "by 2040" - the claim is in 40 years time: so 2065 (actually 2063 is quoted). And the report says that including "white other" all whites become a minority by 2079.
Thank-you (and to @berberian_knows ) for catching that. My mistake for the typo.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
I'd be interested to know if there is published data on that, especially across regions.
I can't think of a performance reason why it would need to be Fluorescent not LED - it's not as if they haven't had time to go pp since LED became economically viable.
Fluorescent tubes can last a long time. I have a light in the front room where I think the last time a tube was changed was in 1982 or something because i remember “doing it” at my Nan’s with my uncle helping (doing all the actual work).
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
Sorry but no - I can think of a lot of companies where the wrong people have been promoted but where I wasn’t in a position to do anything about it
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
nah, it's handy for identifying racists whose opinion can and should be ignored
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
The thing about the Conservative Party’s MP’s and apparatchiks, is that , given how much they despise each other, why should they expect the rest of us to vote for them?
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
I'm actually just catching up with Stride's speech and press conference now; it's really quite astonishing.
A quote from the conference on Kemi:
"She will get better through time at the media, she will get better through time at the dispatch box at PMQs.
"Just as Margaret Thatcher when she became leader in 75 was often criticised for everything from her hair to the clothes she wore to the pitch of her voice to heaven knows what else - in the end she got it together and Kemi will do absolutely that."
What the actual fuck? Is that his idea of showing support - publicly pontificating on his leaders poor performance like he's discussing her over dinner?
Spending a keynote event not just trashing Truss - which in my opinion is deeply damaging, but damning Kemi with unsubtle backhanded compliments like that is simply providing ammunition for enemies of the party, as we can see above the line. And this was the man who failed to call for Reeves' resignation about five times in a TV interview. No idea whether he's come round to the idea now.
The man is either deeply stupid or congenitally disloyal. Either way he shouldn't be anywhere near the Shadow Cabinet.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
Britain's manufacturing left in the dust by America. It's a story as old as time.
Ironically, Churchill himself would soon throw away Britain's lead in computing by the destruction of Colossus and continued secrecy around Bletchley Park.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
You'll have to add in Norse for Orkney (which has four distinct genetic groupings), "British" for the Welsh (but not for Pembrokeshire), then you've got distinct groupings in Devon and Cornwall along the Tamar. Also Cumbria, bits of West Yorkshire... Celtic groups tend to be closer to the Anglo-Saxon profile than they are to each other.
The "English" in the east and south of the country are similar to the French, on current national boundaries- far more than we are the Germans or Scandivanians. So you wouldn't want to exclude half the white population on account of them being a bit Gallic.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
I'd be interested to know if there is published data on that, especially across regions.
I can't think of a performance reason why it would need to be Fluorescent not LED - it's not as if they haven't had time to go pp since LED became economically viable.
Fluorescent tubes can last a long time. I have a light in the front room where I think the last time a tube was changed was in 1982 or something because i remember “doing it” at my Nan’s with my uncle helping (doing all the actual work).
Yes. I have some in the garage installed 25 years ago. I've replaced one with an LED tube so far.
They aren't actually that much less efficient although maybe if you have them on 24/7 it will add up (about 30% more power use I think?)
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
Ratner had to remove the name Ratner from all his stores to survive after his joke went wrong.
While Truss was PM things went wrong to the extent our interest rates are now 2.25% higher than the rates in the EU.
If the Tory party can't say sorry for that and explain what they've done to make sure it can never happen again people are going to vote for other parties...
I'm actually just catching up with Stride's speech and press conference now; it's really quite astonishing.
A quote from the conference on Kemi:
"She will get better through time at the media, she will get better through time at the dispatch box at PMQs.
"Just as Margaret Thatcher when she became leader in 75 was often criticised for everything from her hair to the clothes she wore to the pitch of her voice to heaven knows what else - in the end she got it together and Kemi will do absolutely that."
What the actual fuck? Is that his idea of showing support - publicly pontificating on his leaders poor performance like he's discussing her over dinner?
Spending a keynote event not just trashing Truss - which in my opinion is deeply damaging, but damning Kemi with unsubtle backhanded compliments like that is simply providing ammunition for enemies of the party, as we can see above the line. And this was the man who failed to call for Reeves' resignation about five times in a TV interview. No idea whether he's come round to the idea now.
The man is either deeply stupid or congenitally disloyal. Either way he shouldn't be anywhere near the Shadow Cabinet.
Didn’t Kemi say pretty much the same in her speech yesterday? I suspect it’s a (not very good) line cobbled together by Team Kemi.
Britain's manufacturing left in the dust by America. It's a story as old as time.
Ironically, Churchill himself would soon throw away Britain's lead in computing by the destruction of Colossus and continued secrecy around Bletchley Park.
Is that really true? Leo (and Edsac before it) indicate that we were leaders in computing into the 1950s. I might suggest that the (relative) failure of British computing was down to other factors, including investment and management issues.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That's simplistic. It's a bit like saying you can only buy your house with cash.
There has always been, and always will be a role for borrowing. We have quite sophisticated tools for working out returns on investment, including that by government.
Sure, but as individuals we rarely are in a position to buy a property for cash. The costs are multiples of annual income. The reverse is true of governments, where capital expenditure is a tiny fraction of government income. No government infrastructure spend is 3x or more of annual tax take.
HS2 is close and must be the biggest white elephant in the world ever.
Even on the most pessimistic predictions, the spend on HS2 (over decades) would have been around one-sixth of annual government income.
And if it had been built in full, it would not have been a white elephant.
The stupid mess Sunak came up with, on the other hand...(and it didn't even save any money).
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
He wasn't anonymous. Anything but. I'm not naming him to avoid identifying the place where I was which might cause an issue for me - not him.
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
Um, no. Opinion is fine, but don't try to rewrite history. The minibudget was never executed. Liz thinks 'it would have worked' not 'it should have worked' and 'it didn't' is because it never happened.
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
Excellent. This the fiscal conservative side of you talking.
It's by far the most impressive one.
More tax just means less real spending and the tax is squandered by the morons taking it, circle of disaster as we have seen. We need far less state and far less tax and let people spend their money. Instead they make it better to be idle and live off benefits.
Where would you like to cut spending so that taxes can be reduced...
Defence, NHS, pensioner's pensions, pensioner's social care, welfare for disabled people, police and justice system? Because at the moment that's where the money is going.
We may think that a lot goes on benefits, but a lot goes on subsidies based on long outdated economic thinking. Have a word with JRM about his views on the farming/farm owners lobby.
And do we actually want to reduce spend on things that keep us safe. Brave but perhaps foolhardy.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
Ratner had to remove the name Ratner from all his stores to survive after his joke went wrong.
While Truss was PM things went wrong to the extent our interest rates are now 2.25% higher than the rates in the EU.
If the Tory party can't say sorry for that and explain what they've done to make sure it can never happen again people are going to vote for other parties...
That's the most bizarre stab at a causal link betweeen a budget that didn't happen and pur economic travails yet.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
70% of casualties in the war are now from drones, mostly micro-drones. That's an amazing statistic, as in most wars it is a similar percentage for artillery.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
This is true. Drones are transforming war in real time, and live on air (streamed from a drone)
It’s not just the minidrones on the battlefield (tho wait until they become autonomous robots, eek) it’s the destruction of Russia’s bomber fleet with… a lorry full of drones
A lot of orthodox defence thinking must be junked. Along with a lot of big vulnerable weapons. And FFS give up on the idea of fighter pilots - men flying planes will soon seem ridiculous
The "ancient, running florescent tube bulbs" comment below is an interesting one.
If something works, should it be replaced just because something newer is available? Or is cheaper/better (even for the environment) to let something continue until it fails, then replace it with the latest? (Assuming that its potential failure does not lead to other issues...). Or wait until a refurbishment of the building to change?
Large amounts of money can be wasted by continually chasing the newest tech or trends; but sometimes it is the right thing to do. The trick is to know *when* it is the right thing to do...
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
70% of casualties in the war are now from drones, mostly micro-drones. That's an amazing statistic, as in most wars it is a similar percentage for artillery.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
This is true. Drones are transforming war in real time, and live on air (streamed from a drone)
It’s not just the minidrones on the battlefield (tho wait until they become autonomous robots, eek) it’s the destruction of Russia’s bomber fleet with… a lorry full of drones
A lot of orthodox defence thinking must be junked. Along with a lot of big vulnerable weapons. And FFS give up on the idea of fighter pilots - men flying planes will soon seem ridiculous
I disagree. People were saying the same thing about tanks a couple of years ago, yet both Russia and Ukraine are desperate for more tanks. Those missiles being launched into Ukraine are being launched from manned bombers, and Ukraine are also extensively using their planes.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
Yes, but they don't get the pillow mints Malcom, so shut up and stop calling it 4 star. Or something.
The "ancient, running florescent tube bulbs" comment below is an interesting one.
If something works, should it be replaced just because something newer is available? Or is cheaper/better (even for the environment) to let something continue until it fails, then replace it with the latest? (Assuming that its potential failure does not lead to other issues...). Or wait until a refurbishment of the building to change?
Large amounts of money can be wasted by continually chasing the newest tech or trends; but sometimes it is the right thing to do. The trick is to know *when* it is the right thing to do...
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
We couldn't. So we didn't invest whilst all of our competitors did. Which is why our economy is in such a mess.
There is nothing wrong with borrowing to invest. It is borrowing to burn that is the problem. And it goes beyond government. The manta of investment = subsidy means that the private sector largely stopped investing as well.
Compare and contrast with Norway, which did invest from revenue into a capital fund.
Yes and squandered all Scotland's oil to refurbish London and the South East whilst closing all industry in the north.
Yes the North Sea Oil and Privatisation receipts of the 1980s were used as revenue to permit tax cuts and consumer spending, while neglecting infrastructure investment. Simultaneously they inflated the price of Sterling and made much UK manufacturing less competitive.
All developed countries have struggled with the shift away from manufacturing based jobs and economies, but we seem to have managed it worse than most.
Thatcher to thank for that, great pity she never stayed in the corner shop rahter than apply her experiences to the country. Big difference to selling spuds and mars bars.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
@bondegezou’s obsession with proving that asylum seekers are “not staying in 4* star hotels because the 4* star hotels have closed the saunas” is both hilarious and telling
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
nah, it's handy for identifying racists whose opinion can and should be ignored
roll out the "racist" dog whistle, just like "nazi" one. Handy when you cannot refute reality.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
He wasn't anonymous. Anything but. I'm not naming him to avoid identifying the place where I was which might cause an issue for me - not him.
You could be exposed as meeting Tory MPs, the shame would never go...
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
Um, no. Opinion is fine, but don't try to rewrite history. The minibudget was never executed. Liz thinks 'it would have worked' not 'it should have worked' and 'it didn't' is because it never happened.
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
She strangled it at birth by sacking Kwarteng, allowing Hunt to do other things and then resigning. If that was because of market pressure or whatever is irrelevant, if she felt it would have worked she should have implemented it in a way or over a timescsale that allowed it to without the panic and retreat and outcomes that followed.
Last year, Ukraine produced about 1,000 drones for every hour of the year, and this year they plan to produce about 40 for every minute. Incredible.
That’s a very good example of the misuse of statistics by the original tweeter. He must be a Lib Dem.
1000 per hour = 17 per minute.
17 / min —> 40 / min is a very impressive increase in capacity
But much less good that the impression that a casual reader would take away from a glance at the tweet.
I didn’t get the data from a tweet (and did the sums myself). And what is incredible is that they are producing so many in the first place.
70% of casualties in the war are now from drones, mostly micro-drones. That's an amazing statistic, as in most wars it is a similar percentage for artillery.
The Ukranians are the world leaders in this, but the Russians are copying fast. It's a shift to defensive decentralised defensive weapons that makes assembling a concentration of forces for battle a major risk.
This is true. Drones are transforming war in real time, and live on air (streamed from a drone)
It’s not just the minidrones on the battlefield (tho wait until they become autonomous robots, eek) it’s the destruction of Russia’s bomber fleet with… a lorry full of drones
A lot of orthodox defence thinking must be junked. Along with a lot of big vulnerable weapons. And FFS give up on the idea of fighter pilots - men flying planes will soon seem ridiculous
I disagree. People were saying the same thing about tanks a couple of years ago, yet both Russia and Ukraine are desperate for more tanks. Those missiles being launched into Ukraine are being launched from manned bombers, and Ukraine are also extensively using their planes.
This will change
See: the rise of machine translation
Incidentally I saw an interview with a tech bigwig yesterday (with no skin in the game) who said “we laughed at self driving cars but they are finally here. It’s taken far longer than expected, but they are here. It’s happened”
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
I think they have to because it came to define them and it's hugely negative in the public perception. They have to deal with it in order to regain trust on the economy and the public finances.
There won't be another Conservative government until they do that. Look at Labour. They have lost umpteen elections because the public trusted the Tories more with the money.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
Much of that I agree with but actually I think we need to invest a bit more in the foreign office and diplomacy.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
Very interesting discussion which I hope I'm not too late to join in on.
IMV this exchange illustrutes our problem perfectly.
Someone (in this case Malcolm) gives a broad brush attempt at a solution, usually based on a superficial, partisan view of the economy (in this case public sector are parasites and we can cut with no unintented consequences.
Someone else (in this case Casino) with knowledge of a particular field then chips in with the need to exclude something from such cuts. The reasons for such special treatment are usually valid.
We then end up either with a Tory flavour of mess (cut to the bone the things that noone shouts enough about - during austerity this was police, armed forces, local government - with unintended consequences that we are all feeling now), or a Labour flavour (not actually living within our means because there is a reason not to cut everything when you really get down to it).
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
We should absolutely do more for homeless people in this country. It is a massive failure by politicians in Scotland and in England.
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
On topic, I'm not sure how to handle the Truss period, other than the usual - don't handle it and batter the Government. The Keir Starmer 'answering' a question at PMQs approach.
But what I can say is that it's not really Truss that's an issue in and of itself, its that her premiership is a flashpoint and lightning rod for ongoing Tory wars.
Instead of showing any genuine regret for the failures of 14 year of Tory rule, when successive Governments promised to cut taxes and the burden of the State, and cut immigration, and instead raised taxes, expanded the State, and vastly expanded immigration, a subset of the party wants to say "I deeply regret what they did". And it's probably not just the left like Stride that wants to do it; it's probably the right like Suella, but I see it more on the left. So there's no genuine humility or thinking 'we were wrong', it's just a stick to beat your opponents in the party with. That's a disgraceful approach, and as I said upthread, it's the general impression of a sack of ferrets that's toxic to the Tory brand in my opinion.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
I think they have to because it came to define them and it's hugely negative in the public perception. They have to deal with it in order to regain trust on the economy and the public finances.
There won't be another Conservative government until they do that. Look at Labour. They have lost umpteen elections because the public trusted the Tories more with the money.
But now they trust the Tories more with the money. The polling is clear on this. And this is without the dredging up of Truss that you (as a Labour supporter) seem to think is so vital.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
What do you think is the best way for the Tories to show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode?
I have no idea what the 'best way' would be, and it's a moot point, as I don't think they should show show the electorate that they regret and have learnt from the Truss episode.
I think they have to because it came to define them and it's hugely negative in the public perception. They have to deal with it in order to regain trust on the economy and the public finances.
There won't be another Conservative government until they do that. Look at Labour. They have lost umpteen elections because the public trusted the Tories more with the money.
Exactly, its a purely tactical decision. Work in the world as it is, not as you'd hope it would be. You'll never make it how you'd hope it might be from the outside anyway
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
What amazes me is that anyone thinks it is right for the British state to be putting people who have arrived here without papers, on small boats, after ridiculously dangerous journeys administered by hardened criminals, up in hotels at all.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue.
Exactly right
For most people a stay of two weeks in a dumbed down 4 star Sheraton (with the sauna shut but a free dentist and doctor on site) is an absolute dream. Which will never come true
Some asylum seekers get to do this for months. Put your feet up, chill out, sorry the gym is shut but we can do all your laundry and cleaning, so just relax
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
Um, no. Opinion is fine, but don't try to rewrite history. The minibudget was never executed. Liz thinks 'it would have worked' not 'it should have worked' and 'it didn't' is because it never happened.
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
She strangled it at birth by sacking Kwarteng, allowing Hunt to do other things and then resigning. If that was because of market pressure or whatever is irrelevant, if she felt it would have worked she should have implemented it in a way or over a timescsale that allowed it to without the panic and retreat and outcomes that followed.
You'll get no argument from me that politically the Truss Government was a shambles, and that the minibudget episode (though not the minibudget content) was a disaster.
But why it wasn't implemented isn't the issue - it wasn't implemented, and your post implied that it was, and that it failed. That's a Labour attack line and it is a literal, balls out, lie. I don't know where you stand politically, but I think a key thing for the Tories is not to feed such delusions.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
What amazes me is that anyone thinks it is right for the British state to be putting people who have arrived here without papers, on small boats, after ridiculously dangerous journeys administered by hardened criminals, up in hotels at all.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue.
I think I’ve stayed in a hotel for one night in the last 2 years. Which was for work. It was not 4*.
Asylum seekers are housed in a range of accommodation. None of it is luxurious. Some of it is in hotels that have been converted into basic hostels.
What we should be doing is processing claims as quickly as possible so that as few people as possible have to be housed in this way. The Conservative government, however, let the backlog build up and up and we are where we are.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
Much of that I agree with but actually I think we need to invest a bit more in the foreign office and diplomacy.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
Very interesting discussion which I hope I'm not too late to join in on.
IMV this exchange illustrutes our problem perfectly.
Someone (in this case Malcolm) gives a broad brush attempt at a solution, usually based on a superficial, partisan view of the economy (in this case public sector are parasites and we can cut with no unintented consequences.
Someone else (in this case Casino) with knowledge of a particular field then chips in with the need to exclude something from such cuts. The reasons for such special treatment are usually valid.
We then end up either with a Tory flavour of mess (cut to the bone the things that noone shouts enough about - during austerity this was police, armed forces, local government - with unintended consequences that we are all feeling now), or a Labour flavour (not actually living within our means because there is a reason not to cut everything when you really get down to it).
Not quite partisan and superficial and we do need public services but run decently and value for money. In private companies they cannot rob people to waste money when badly run, they either cut their cloth accordingly or go bust. Politician's just keep adding to the disaster as they are only there short term, look at popularity and in general appear to care not a jot about the country and would rather get as much out of the trough as they can whilst they can.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
Triple lock and all other statutory increases in benefits and minimum wage. These should be at the discretion of the CoE as part of an overall budget.
There need to be tax rises too. Everyone wants the magic cure of economic growth, but in reality that is just a conjuring trick of deficit spending on either tax cuts or public sector spending, a short term sugar rush.
Growth happens because of fundamentals. Sound money, strong educational achievements, geographic and social mobility of the workforce, appropriate but not excessive regulation, affordable and reliable energy.
That's not entirely true.
For example, one of the bigger mistakes of the coalition, which otherwise had the right ideas, was to cutting too much investment. At a time when it was still possible to borrow at quite low long term interest rates.
Sustained capital investment by government has a significant role in growth.
That's fine. Just pay for that capital investment from taxation rather than borrowing is all that I ask.
That makes no sense - day to day spending should be from taxation, borrowing should be capital investment. Micawber’s advice was for day to day spending, Polonus’s doesn’t cover buying something like a house
And that attitude is part of the reason we're here. There's an interview with Nathaniel Fried, the DOGE-UK techie, in today's Times;
Fried said he found “genuinely ancient” IT systems that were “nearly as old as me” and costing the council in wasted staff hours. He said that officials worked incredibly hard but were blighted by antiquated processes and inefficient procurement practices.
Which is very likely true, but a long way from LAZY WFH DESK JOCKEYS or MILLIONS OF FRAUD.
I sit in public buildings and gawp at some of the decrepit crap they are using. In hospital in both Banff and Aberdeen with mum this week. Ceiling lights are ancient, running florescent tube bulbs. You know how much money those things cost to run? You could save an absolute bomb replacing them with LEDs.
Why doesn't that happen? That's right - we can't afford it. So instead of spending a little in capex to replace the lights with ones that collapse the energy bill long term, we "save" that investment and pay a lot more in leccy costs.
It's mind-numbingly stupid.
We will be spending £230 billion pounds a year on the NHS.
We can afford it. 75% of it goes on staff.
Pay needs to be restrained for CapEx. Junior Doctors can go whistle, the BMA is simply the most effective trade union there is.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
We should absolutely do more for homeless people in this country. It is a massive failure by politicians in Scotland and in England.
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
The big issue is the illegal immigrants are treated far better than locals and at some point it will cause even bigger issues than we have now. We are squandering billions on people who should not be here whilst ignoring and beggaring local people. A recipe for disaster.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
What amazes me is that anyone thinks it is right for the British state to be putting people who have arrived here without papers, on small boats, after ridiculously dangerous journeys administered by hardened criminals, up in hotels at all.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue.
I think I’ve stayed in a hotel for one night in the last 2 years. Which was for work. It was not 4*.
Asylum seekers are housed in a range of accommodation. None of it is luxurious. Some of it is in hotels that have been converted into basic hostels.
What we should be doing is processing claims as quickly as possible so that as few people as possible have to be housed in this way. The Conservative government, however, let the backlog build up and up and we are where we are.
No, we want you to go on and on and on about “how they’re not 4 star hotels ok they WERE 4 star hotels but now they are much more like weird 3 star hotels but with the same rooms and decor of a 4 star hotel and anyway it only costs us two billlon quid of your money”. If you could do that it would be really helpful. Thanks
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
Much of that I agree with but actually I think we need to invest a bit more in the foreign office and diplomacy.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
Very interesting discussion which I hope I'm not too late to join in on.
IMV this exchange illustrutes our problem perfectly.
Someone (in this case Malcolm) gives a broad brush attempt at a solution, usually based on a superficial, partisan view of the economy (in this case public sector are parasites and we can cut with no unintented consequences.
Someone else (in this case Casino) with knowledge of a particular field then chips in with the need to exclude something from such cuts. The reasons for such special treatment are usually valid.
We then end up either with a Tory flavour of mess (cut to the bone the things that noone shouts enough about - during austerity this was police, armed forces, local government - with unintended consequences that we are all feeling now), or a Labour flavour (not actually living within our means because there is a reason not to cut everything when you really get down to it).
Personally, I'd approach the problem from the other end. Start again with a blank slate: 1. Once we have accounted for debt interest, what is our budget for current spending? 2. Sticking to that budget, what should we fund to ensure everyone in the UK has a minimum acceptable standard of (dignified) living (including keeping us safe through defence), and that we are amongst the top contributers to global funds that aspire to allow everyone globally to live at a minimum standard with dignity. 3. In designing programmes to achieve these minimum standards, we use far more than we have done in the past the latest replicable research from social psychology and behavioural economics to incentivise people to be as independent from the state as possible. We are unafraid to ask everyone, including the most vulnerable, to strive for a life with dignity, not be handed it on a plate. 3. Where achieving the minimum standards above is projected to require more money than our current spending budget, we raise taxes. As part of this we seek to change the narrative around taxes i.e. that they are essential investments in our public realm and our collective productivity that will preserve the UK's standards of living for us and the next generation. We use developments in digital money e.g. blockchain to allow individuals to track their tax payments in a far more granular way so that e.g. I know my taxes have funded a homeless person's route back into work. I am able to challenge use of my tax with my MP at any point. 4. Separately, we determine what constitutes proper investment with an anticipated return higher than the cost of borrowing, and we borrow money to fund that investment, probably at a significantly higher rate than we are currently doing.
I would also consider (though can see that this might be a disaster) changing the parliamentary term to 8 or 10 years such that governments can be braver in investing early in the term to see the benefits before they face the electorate again.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
We should absolutely do more for homeless people in this country. It is a massive failure by politicians in Scotland and in England.
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
Might I signpost everyone to the Homeless Reduction Act 2019 and what it offers homeless people. If there are homeless then it won't be for the lack of help on offer. In fact, there is so much help on offer, it's bankrupting some councils.
So having a poke at immigrants/hotels is a sign of not looking further than the front page of the Daily Mail.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
The thing about the Conservative Party’s MP’s and apparatchiks, is that , given how much they despise each other, why should they expect the rest of us to vote for them?
I was reflecting on this the other day - this goes back decades.
The only PM I can think of in living memory who was proud to be a Conservative and actually delivered was Margaret Thatcher.
The establishment Tories hated her, tried to undermine her, and wanted someone like William Whitelaw instead. Go back even further and they wanted Baldwin and Chamberlain, and detested Churchill.
It really is an entirely self-interested and patrician party that simply believes it should be in government, because. More of a gentleman's club for the well behaved, which can admit newcomers like Heseltine and Heath if they fit the bill, but decidedly uninterested in anything else save gossip and rumour against those they dislike.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
We should absolutely do more for homeless people in this country. It is a massive failure by politicians in Scotland and in England.
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
Might I signpost everyone to the Homeless Reduction Act 2019 and what it offers homeless people. If there are homeless then it won't be for the lack of help on offer. In fact, there is so much help on offer, it's bankrupting some councils.
So having a poke at immigrants/hotels is a sign of not looking further than the front page of the Daily Mail.
Homelessness disappeared during the lockdowns. Funny what can be done with the right political will, my old man used to say.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
It is unbelievable that we rae happy for poor locals, homeless etc to liv eon the streets, cars , shop doorways etc yet someone can swan in on a dinghy and get put up in very pleasant hotels, 3 meals a day , phones, pocket money , private health etc. If it is good enough for them then why not put homeless and people living in hovels up in hotels.
We should absolutely do more for homeless people in this country. It is a massive failure by politicians in Scotland and in England.
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
Might I signpost everyone to the Homeless Reduction Act 2019 and what it offers homeless people. If there are homeless then it won't be for the lack of help on offer. In fact, there is so much help on offer, it's bankrupting some councils.
So having a poke at immigrants/hotels is a sign of not looking further than the front page of the Daily Mail.
Is that like social care where entitled people should all get it but instead they send a letter saying yes you definitely need a care package but we are skint , we will get back to you if we have some money in future. Yet they have billions to spend on illegal immigrants.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
What amazes me is that anyone thinks it is right for the British state to be putting people who have arrived here without papers, on small boats, after ridiculously dangerous journeys administered by hardened criminals, up in hotels at all.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue.
Exactly right
For most people a stay of two weeks in a dumbed down 4 star Sheraton (with the sauna shut but a free dentist and doctor on site) is an absolute dream. Which will never come true
Some asylum seekers get to do this for months. Put your feet up, chill out, sorry the gym is shut but we can do all your laundry and cleaning, so just relax
It enrages many average Britons. Rightly
He doesn't get it, and he will never get it.
He's almost a pastiche stereotype of an establishment liberal, working in a cosy job in a university where everyone thinks exactly like him, and he's entirely tone-deaf to any other point of view - which he considers entirely illegitimate.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
As for apologising for Truss what on earth is the point? She was kicked out of office by her own party in short order despite inheriting a comfortable majority. What more is there to be said?
She also taught anyone paying attention a valuable lesson. The UK government is not sovereign for so long as we want to live on other peoples money. It’s a lesson Reeves would do well not to forget.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
David , depends where tax rises fall, that usually does not help spending/growth. Otherwise agreed.
Morning all. On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it) She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
Um, no. Opinion is fine, but don't try to rewrite history. The minibudget was never executed. Liz thinks 'it would have worked' not 'it should have worked' and 'it didn't' is because it never happened.
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
She strangled it at birth by sacking Kwarteng, allowing Hunt to do other things and then resigning. If that was because of market pressure or whatever is irrelevant, if she felt it would have worked she should have implemented it in a way or over a timescsale that allowed it to without the panic and retreat and outcomes that followed.
You'll get no argument from me that politically the Truss Government was a shambles, and that the minibudget episode (though not the minibudget content) was a disaster.
But why it wasn't implemented isn't the issue - it wasn't implemented, and your post implied that it was, and that it failed. That's a Labour attack line and it is a literal, balls out, lie. I don't know where you stand politically, but I think a key thing for the Tories is not to feed such delusions.
No, it wasn't implemented. By 'failed' I guess I mean she chose to/was forced to or whatever strangle the plans at birth and go a different route. They failed by not happening if you like. Indeed most or at least many of the individual mini budget proposals had polling net support and cross party support in the very immediate reaction. She monumentally screwed up trying to do it all in execution and presentation and we all paid for that both via the immediate collywobbles and the route we were forced down by the climbing down and are stuck in now.
Politically I'm homeless. I really don't see hope in anything on offer. The odd thing gets me excited then usually falls apart on closer inspection. I feel we are constantly being told we've never had it so good by the soilman as he dumps this weeks turds into our pit
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
I get this, too. Because I hesitate to talk about issues relating to asylum. And I'm incredibly supportive of Britain helping genuine refugees; especially those most in need, such as families, all across the world.
But then, I think, actually maybe that is the problem. By the mainstream failing to talk about an issue, it is only taken up by those who may have agendas.
WFA is a good example of the opposite. Almost every pensioner I know has mentioned it to me in the past few months. Even those who supported the cut, mention it. No one considered it taboo.
The 'you can't say that' effect on politics has been incredibly bad for the well-meaning majority of the country.
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
I feel for you. It's sad when your heroes are revealed to have feet of clay
It must be Rog. But never mind. I'm sure your next leader won't be a clammy, venal charmless lardbucket with all the charisma of a polyester bedsheet.
I think roger no longer supports Labour, but there is an easy and simple solution to Labour's charmless clod-footed leader.
I am sure she isn't as easy and simple as you're making out.
Ange not easy? The dreams of PB dads crushed.
Personally I've got nothing against her (though Foxy's peach of a setup couldn't be passed up), she's a genuine person and fairly likable, except it's clear the whole country is in for savage cuts, regardless of the sentiments of the PM, and I think that she's not the PM for these times.
The context to Mel Stride's "apology" is that a large chunk of the right doesn't see a problem with Liz Truss or her previous budget. Stride is appalled but this and the apology is actually staking a position to defend.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
The "ancient, running florescent tube bulbs" comment below is an interesting one.
If something works, should it be replaced just because something newer is available? Or is cheaper/better (even for the environment) to let something continue until it fails, then replace it with the latest? (Assuming that its potential failure does not lead to other issues...). Or wait until a refurbishment of the building to change?
Large amounts of money can be wasted by continually chasing the newest tech or trends; but sometimes it is the right thing to do. The trick is to know *when* it is the right thing to do...
A proper asset management strategy will sort this out.
But it'd almost be worth expending the CapEx on LED lights to save the OpEx on fluorescents.
I suspect there's something else going on here about fixtures, fittings, electrical circuits or the clinical safety case (maybe) of changing the lighting regime.
Or it's some silly FM contract straitjacketing what the Trust does, and maybe some Union issues on top.
A lot of bureaucracies make it too hard to get anything done.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
You actually think we GAF you are put off. Just you and Bondy take off your bobble hats and sandals and have a cosy debate about what a 4 * hotel is.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
David , depends where tax rises fall, that usually does not help spending/growth. Otherwise agreed.
There is no point in pretending that tax rises like that are not going to hit growth. They are. But we desperately need to rebalance our finances at a time and way of our own choosing or the market will eventually do it for us.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
Much of that I agree with but actually I think we need to invest a bit more in the foreign office and diplomacy.
Changed world, and a British consular presence is important. Probably even the ferrero rocher.
Very interesting discussion which I hope I'm not too late to join in on.
IMV this exchange illustrutes our problem perfectly.
Someone (in this case Malcolm) gives a broad brush attempt at a solution, usually based on a superficial, partisan view of the economy (in this case public sector are parasites and we can cut with no unintented consequences.
Someone else (in this case Casino) with knowledge of a particular field then chips in with the need to exclude something from such cuts. The reasons for such special treatment are usually valid.
We then end up either with a Tory flavour of mess (cut to the bone the things that noone shouts enough about - during austerity this was police, armed forces, local government - with unintended consequences that we are all feeling now), or a Labour flavour (not actually living within our means because there is a reason not to cut everything when you really get down to it).
Not quite partisan and superficial and we do need public services but run decently and value for money. In private companies they cannot rob people to waste money when badly run, they either cut their cloth accordingly or go bust. Politician's just keep adding to the disaster as they are only there short term, look at popularity and in general appear to care not a jot about the country and would rather get as much out of the trough as they can whilst they can.
I actually agree with a lot of that, malc, but just as Casino does with embassies, I'd point to education and say that to cut another 5-10% would just be shooting ourselves in the foot in terms of the sorts of 18 year olds that will come out of the other side of schools in a generation.
It's not that the DfE couldn't save 5-10% without impacting on students' knowledge, character and resilience, it's that they wouldn't. Pretending that they (should) have the same incentives as a private company just won't work.
I don't really know the answer, other than a cultural change which would make civil servants constantly aware that any time they spend money within DfE it is money intended to impact students' education positively. I believe we could get that if we as taxpayers were better able to follow our taxes through e.g. the DfE to know precisely what they are spent on.
As for apologising for Truss what on earth is the point? She was kicked out of office by her own party in short order despite inheriting a comfortable majority. What more is there to be said?
She also taught anyone paying attention a valuable lesson. The UK government is not sovereign for so long as we want to live on other peoples money. It’s a lesson Reeves would do well not to forget.
What more is to be said is that much of Reform and the Conservatives are perfectly fine with Truss and are happy to repeat her budget experiment.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
William I William III George I
George I was actually just plain and simple German.
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
To do @TSE the politeness of addressing his threader
The Tories might as well do this, it will placate the few people that really care. But I doubt it will move them by a single point in the polls, and it will be forgotten by the time of the next election, anyway
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
You actually think we GAF you are put off. Just you and Bondy take off your bobble hats and sandals and have a cosy debate about what a 4 * hotel is.
I've never been under the impression you care what I think. It's mutual though .
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
Last time I checked we were supposed to be able to self-identify.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
Living out of a single room, even if the wallpaper is nice, is not a great existence. Asylum seekers do not live in luxury. They have pretty shitty lives. I thought this was an interesting video: https://youtu.be/jj43vrflFIA
The UK is spending too much on housing asylum seekers this way. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/asylum-accommodation-in-the-uk/ discusses this and what other countries do. It’s a problem that arose because of how the previous Conservative government mishandled the situation. But the facilities asylum seekers get are not better than millions of people in this country.
To do @TSE the politeness of addressing his threader
The Tories might as well do this, it will placate the few people that really care. But I doubt it will move them by a single point in the polls, and it will be forgotten by the time of the next election, anyway
It probably helps with the foundations and stopping them dropping to taxi cab levels. Its not winning them Bootle though
Anecdotally, I was speaking to a Conservative MP who shall be nameless yesterday.
He said, 'I have known Liz Truss very well for many years. And to know her is to know also that she should not be put in charge of anything at all.'
He also claimed that Kwarteng was actually opposed to the fiscal event, and was privately much more critical of Truss than was let on in public.
And finally, he added, 'it reflects very badly on us as a party, and on Boris Johnson, Theresa May and David Cameron who made her ministers, that we ever let her near power.'
'Anonymous Tory MPs' are a disease upon the party and the body politic. There's only one thing that reflects badly on the party in his pathetic backbiting tale, and that's him.
The thing about the Conservative Party’s MP’s and apparatchiks, is that , given how much they despise each other, why should they expect the rest of us to vote for them?
I was reflecting on this the other day - this goes back decades.
The only PM I can think of in living memory who was proud to be a Conservative and actually delivered was Margaret Thatcher.
The establishment Tories hated her, tried to undermine her, and wanted someone like William Whitelaw instead. Go back even further and they wanted Baldwin and Chamberlain, and detested Churchill.
It really is an entirely self-interested and patrician party that simply believes it should be in government, because. More of a gentleman's club for the well behaved, which can admit newcomers like Heseltine and Heath if they fit the bill, but decidedly uninterested in anything else save gossip and rumour against those they dislike.
That's interesting and no doubt true as a general theme and mindset, but there is a political layer to it which is an ongoing struggle between radicals like Thatcher and corporatist, elitist, statist europhiles.
I see the Cameron party reforms, A lists (by which we got Truss! ), centralisation etc. as when the rot really set in and the latter group gained the upper hand completely.
A large caucus of Tory MPs (possibly over half) are now simply conviction Lib Dems. And when Reform come in with Tory policies and Tories turn round and say 'Why aren't we doing that?', they say 'don't ape Reform'. It's a mess.
Boris actually did a great job getting rid of much of this element the PCP, but the replacements selected by CCHQ seem to have been identical in outlook if not further left.
It won't recover till it guts CCHQ and starts from scratch, and there's a radical decentralisation of power back to local associations.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
David , depends where tax rises fall, that usually does not help spending/growth. Otherwise agreed.
There is no point in pretending that tax rises like that are not going to hit growth. They are. But we desperately need to rebalance our finances at a time and way of our own choosing or the market will eventually do it for us.
For sure Labour will not do it, no sign of anyone who will either.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
Living out of a single room, even if the wallpaper is nice, is not a great existence. Asylum seekers do not live in luxury. They have pretty shitty lives. I thought this was an interesting video: https://youtu.be/jj43vrflFIA
The UK is spending too much on housing asylum seekers this way. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/asylum-accommodation-in-the-uk/ discusses this and what other countries do. It’s a problem that arose because of how the previous Conservative government mishandled the situation. But the facilities asylum seekers get are not better than millions of people in this country.
Please keep going. It adds to the gaiety of the nation
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
Wouldn’t your Japanese restaurant analogy be more relative to the hotel situation if you said that the couple are still running the Japanese restaurant in the same site but they have just removed the complimentary sake and cut down the menu. It’s still a Japanese restaurant, still furnished the same way and comfortable and pleasant to be in.
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
What were 4* hotels have been converted into bare bones accommodation. They are not still furnished in the same way. They are no longer 4* hotels. That is not being disingenuous. That’s just a fact.
Living out of a single room, even if the wallpaper is nice, is not a great existence. Asylum seekers do not live in luxury. They have pretty shitty lives. I thought this was an interesting video: https://youtu.be/jj43vrflFIA
The UK is spending too much on housing asylum seekers this way. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/asylum-accommodation-in-the-uk/ discusses this and what other countries do. It’s a problem that arose because of how the previous Conservative government mishandled the situation. But the facilities asylum seekers get are not better than millions of people in this country.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
So what would you cut?
All benefits to be cut immediately 5%-10%, every government department to save 5%-10%. Savings on all the parasites like embassies and other useless claptrap they are happy to shovel money at. Ditch gold plated pensions in public services. Once things in order then start to give out freebies. No benefits or 4 star hotels for economic migrants arriving illegally in boats or any other method. That would be a good start.
No asylum seekers are staying in 4* hotels.
Think that was proven on here many times, some even 5*.
It was not. Some asylum seekers are staying in hotels that were 4*, but have been converted to house them. They are not getting a 4* experience. That’s just a lie spread by those on the far right who want to whip up hatred.
We’ve covered this in the past and both sides are carefully saying truthful bits.
The hotels aren’t providing a 4 star service for those currently in them but the locals will remember them as the (ignoring the ancient, needing refurbishment bit) 4 star hotel in their town where occasional they had an ok expensive meal
No. One side is truthful and one side is lying. Because something *was* a thing doesn’t mean it always remains that thing.
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
The star rating doesn't matter. It is the principle.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
I agree with this.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
You actually think we GAF you are put off. Just you and Bondy take off your bobble hats and sandals and have a cosy debate about what a 4 * hotel is.
I've never been under the impression you care what I think. It's mutual though .
I certainly have little time for wishy washy lefty liberal dogma
On the Matt Goodwin "White British will be a minority by 2040" report. It's a good example of games that can be played with ethnicity figures.
Here's the prominent graph (my photo quota): Here he excludes the census "White Other" category from his "White British" numbers *. That excludes eg, as far as I can see, Nigel Farage's children with his German wife, who are British citizens. I'd say Goodwin seems to have a strange thing about mixed marriages, even white-white mixed marriages, which should fit his race politics template.
I'm OK with stats, due to a numerical degree and my career, but if we have an academic social scientist here, I'd welcome an evaluation of Goodwin's report. ( @Selebian ?).
A GB News audience member tells @PatrickChristys she’s fearful about Britain’s future — amid projections white Brits will be a minority in 40
To me this is policy based evidence which is weak and swallowed by too many, because Goodwin is trying to scare people, such as the one William quotes, to support his and his allies' politics, by playing with his statistics. In my view this is race / white nationalist politics, and we need to call it by its correct name. Similarly the routine demonisation of "Muslims" we see in our media every day.
* See the "Appendix: UK Population Projections by selected characteristics, 2022–2122 " in the report.
Very reminiscent of the claims that London is now minority "White British", because mang white British people who of Continental parents put "White Other" in the census.
Something really needs to be done about distingushing "White anglo-saxon/celtic", from "White British" in the census, otherwise it's just both a permanent boon for the far-,right, and an unjustified sense of exclusion for everyone else,, of whatever race they are too.
It's not a "boon for the far-right this is a consequence of insisting everyone is bracketed with a racial identity but then suppressing any debate about what that means whatsoever.
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
But it is, because British is a civic not ethnic identity.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
I think apology is meaningless without an intent to change.
Is there a commitment to sound money and an end to deficit spending?
A government (or potential government) committed to living within our means would be a novelty that we haven't seen for decades.
I'm unsure there's a commitment for 'sound money and an end to deficit spending' from any political party. Or, that there could be, given the situation the country finds itself in.
I don't know what the answer is for our economic woes, especially given the current world situation. But it'd be good if we all agreed that there are no easy answers, and it will involve all of us suffering to some extent.
What we need is £75bn of additional taxes and ) £75bn of cuts. Piece of cake.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
David , depends where tax rises fall, that usually does not help spending/growth. Otherwise agreed.
There is no point in pretending that tax rises like that are not going to hit growth. They are. But we desperately need to rebalance our finances at a time and way of our own choosing or the market will eventually do it for us.
The ratchet effect in public expenditure which Alan Peacock and Jack Wiseman decribed in 1961 is still going strong and the causality is: spending --> taxes, so start with the spending
Comments
All developed countries have struggled with the shift away from manufacturing based jobs and economies, but we seem to have managed it worse than most.
I can't think of a performance reason why it would need to be Fluorescent not LED - it's not as if they haven't had time to go pp since LED became economically viable.
On thread and purely from a tactical standpoint lancing the boil now has only potential upsides - the electoral price was already mostly paid but interest continues to accrue on the residual which they want to pay off and all parties including Reform have a sizeable chunk of people saying right to apologise - obviously theyre not 'getting' those voters, but they might get a few if they are ex tories etc who want to see 'economic sense (lol)' return. Its a purely electorally sensible move to stabilize/sound the ship before rebuilding/repair (as they see it)
She tried stuff, stuff blew up. Sorry Liz but even if you think 'it should have worked' , it didnt, so you have to take the blame and they have to distance themselves publically. Youll still get invited to the parties and youll still get jelly and ice cream so stop whining.
A quote from the conference on Kemi:
"She will get better through time at the media, she will get better through time at the dispatch box at PMQs.
"Just as Margaret Thatcher when she became leader in 75 was often criticised for everything from her hair to the clothes she wore to the pitch of her voice to heaven knows what else - in the end she got it together and Kemi will do absolutely that."
What the actual fuck? Is that his idea of showing support - publicly pontificating on his leaders poor performance like he's discussing her over dinner?
Spending a keynote event not just trashing Truss - which in my opinion is deeply damaging, but damning Kemi with unsubtle backhanded compliments like that is simply providing ammunition for enemies of the party, as we can see above the line. And this was the man who failed to call for Reeves' resignation about five times in a TV interview. No idea whether he's come round to the idea now.
The man is either deeply stupid or congenitally disloyal. Either way he shouldn't be anywhere near the Shadow Cabinet.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cj09v52l8v4o
Britain's manufacturing left in the dust by America. It's a story as old as time.
Ironically, Churchill himself would soon throw away Britain's lead in computing by the destruction of Colossus and continued secrecy around Bletchley Park.
The "English" in the east and south of the country are similar to the French, on current national boundaries- far more than we are the Germans or Scandivanians. So you wouldn't want to exclude half the white population on account of them being a bit Gallic.
They aren't actually that much less efficient although maybe if you have them on 24/7 it will add up (about 30% more power use I think?)
The main reason to ban them is the mercury.
👏
While Truss was PM things went wrong to the extent our interest rates are now 2.25% higher than the rates in the EU.
If the Tory party can't say sorry for that and explain what they've done to make sure it can never happen again people are going to vote for other parties...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c3e5y8kkpwzo.amp
And if it had been built in full, it would not have been a white elephant.
The stupid mess Sunak came up with, on the other hand...(and it didn't even save any money).
I always know an argument is correct when the opposing side resorts to literally imagined events.
And do we actually want to reduce spend on things that keep us safe. Brave but perhaps foolhardy.
It’s not just the minidrones on the battlefield (tho wait until they become autonomous robots, eek) it’s the destruction of Russia’s bomber fleet with… a lorry full of drones
A lot of orthodox defence thinking must be junked. Along with a lot of big vulnerable weapons. And FFS give up on the idea of fighter pilots - men flying planes will soon seem ridiculous
If something works, should it be replaced just because something newer is available? Or is cheaper/better (even for the environment) to let something continue until it fails, then replace it with the latest? (Assuming that its potential failure does not lead to other issues...). Or wait until a refurbishment of the building to change?
Large amounts of money can be wasted by continually chasing the newest tech or trends; but sometimes it is the right thing to do. The trick is to know *when* it is the right thing to do...
Exhibit B - heat pumps.
https://labourlist.org/2025/06/cabinet-league-table-june-2025-labour-survation-poll/?source=email-labour-list&link_id=13&can_id=2d28bce4ee3b8ec9859463206cbc1ade&email_referrer=email_2764825&email_subject=cabinet-rankings-revealed-members-have-their-say
I remember having an OK but reasonably priced Japanese meal is this building on Junction Road, near where I live. But the couple running that restaurant moved round the corner and there is now a Korean restaurant in the same place. So, is it truthful to refer to that restaurant as a Japanese restaurant (what it was) or a Korean restaurant (what it is)?
See: the rise of machine translation
Incidentally I saw an interview with a tech bigwig yesterday (with no skin in the game) who said “we laughed at self driving cars but they are finally here. It’s taken far longer than expected, but they are here. It’s happened”
I’ll try and find the video
There won't be another Conservative government until they do that. Look at Labour. They have lost umpteen elections because the public trusted the Tories more with the money.
IMV this exchange illustrutes our problem perfectly.
Someone (in this case Malcolm) gives a broad brush attempt at a solution, usually based on a superficial, partisan view of the economy (in this case public sector are parasites and we can cut with no unintented consequences.
Someone else (in this case Casino) with knowledge of a particular field then chips in with the need to exclude something from such cuts. The reasons for such special treatment are usually valid.
We then end up either with a Tory flavour of mess (cut to the bone the things that noone shouts enough about - during austerity this was police, armed forces, local government - with unintended consequences that we are all feeling now), or a Labour flavour (not actually living within our means because there is a reason not to cut everything when you really get down to it).
Asylum seekers are frequently in fairly unpleasant accommodation and they get less money than a UK person on benefits. They get NHS healthcare, not private health. (The NHS has sometimes contracted out services, as they do across the NHS for all of us.)
But what I can say is that it's not really Truss that's an issue in and of itself, its that her premiership is a flashpoint and lightning rod for ongoing Tory wars.
Instead of showing any genuine regret for the failures of 14 year of Tory rule, when successive Governments promised to cut taxes and the burden of the State, and cut immigration, and instead raised taxes, expanded the State, and vastly expanded immigration, a subset of the party wants to say "I deeply regret what they did". And it's probably not just the left like Stride that wants to do it; it's probably the right like Suella, but I see it more on the left. So there's no genuine humility or thinking 'we were wrong', it's just a stick to beat your opponents in the party with. That's a disgraceful approach, and as I said upthread, it's the general impression of a sack of ferrets that's toxic to the Tory brand in my opinion.
Much of the taxpaying population of this country don't stay in hotels because they cannot afford it; they stay with family, or friends, or at a push in guest houses and airbnbs. Many others work all year to have a week or two in a hotel.
The fact that most of us on PB, and in the media-political establishment, stay in hotels all the time, blinds too many people to the issue IMO
My own children are bracketed as White Other, despite both my wife and I wanting them bracketed as White British - because she's European.
On that basis King Charles III is White Other.
You'll never make it how you'd hope it might be from the outside anyway
For most people a stay of two weeks in a dumbed down 4 star Sheraton (with the sauna shut but a free dentist and doctor on site) is an absolute dream. Which will never come true
Some asylum seekers get to do this for months. Put your feet up, chill out, sorry the gym is shut but we can do all your laundry and cleaning, so just relax
It enrages many average Britons. Rightly
But why it wasn't implemented isn't the issue - it wasn't implemented, and your post implied that it was, and that it failed. That's a Labour attack line and it is a literal, balls out, lie. I don't know where you stand politically, but I think a key thing for the Tories is not to feed such delusions.
Asylum seekers are housed in a range of accommodation. None of it is luxurious. Some of it is in hotels that have been converted into basic hostels.
What we should be doing is processing claims as quickly as possible so that as few people as possible have to be housed in this way. The Conservative government, however, let the backlog build up and up and we are where we are.
We can afford it. 75% of it goes on staff.
Pay needs to be restrained for CapEx. Junior Doctors can go whistle, the BMA is simply the most effective trade union there is.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgmjd8evd0go
You focus on the hotels not being 4* based on certain facilities no longer being available however the hotel is still furnished and positioned in a way that is still 4*, the rooms with en suites that are being occupied are 4* standard - they haven’t taken out the beds and replaced with single prison beds, they haven’t locked the en suites and force the residents to share a communal bathroom.
The facilities are still far better to hundreds of thousands of British people, if not millions, who live in shitty bedsits or HMOs so your attempts to downgrade the 4* hotel issue are disingenuous.
1. Once we have accounted for debt interest, what is our budget for current spending?
2. Sticking to that budget, what should we fund to ensure everyone in the UK has a minimum acceptable standard of (dignified) living (including keeping us safe through defence), and that we are amongst the top contributers to global funds that aspire to allow everyone globally to live at a minimum standard with dignity.
3. In designing programmes to achieve these minimum standards, we use far more than we have done in the past the latest replicable research from social psychology and behavioural economics to incentivise people to be as independent from the state as possible. We are unafraid to ask everyone, including the most vulnerable, to strive for a life with dignity, not be handed it on a plate.
3. Where achieving the minimum standards above is projected to require more money than our current spending budget, we raise taxes. As part of this we seek to change the narrative around taxes i.e. that they are essential investments in our public realm and our collective productivity that will preserve the UK's standards of living for us and the next generation. We use developments in digital money e.g. blockchain to allow individuals to track their tax payments in a far more granular way so that e.g. I know my taxes have funded a homeless person's route back into work. I am able to challenge use of my tax with my MP at any point.
4. Separately, we determine what constitutes proper investment with an anticipated return higher than the cost of borrowing, and we borrow money to fund that investment, probably at a significantly higher rate than we are currently doing.
I would also consider (though can see that this might be a disaster) changing the parliamentary term to 8 or 10 years such that governments can be braver in investing early in the term to see the benefits before they face the electorate again.
So having a poke at immigrants/hotels is a sign of not looking further than the front page of the Daily Mail.
Such cuts will require reductions in public sector pensions in payment and severe restrictions on their entitlements. And more political balls than any politician has shown since the Howe budget of the early 80s.
The only PM I can think of in living memory who was proud to be a Conservative and actually delivered was Margaret Thatcher.
The establishment Tories hated her, tried to undermine her, and wanted someone like William Whitelaw instead. Go back even further and they wanted Baldwin and Chamberlain, and detested Churchill.
It really is an entirely self-interested and patrician party that simply believes it should be in government, because. More of a gentleman's club for the well behaved, which can admit newcomers like Heseltine and Heath if they fit the bill, but decidedly uninterested in anything else save gossip and rumour against those they dislike.
But the pushing of the "four star hotel" line really puts someone like me off - I don't want to associate myself with people who are blatantly stirring things up rather than trying to fix the problem. The same goes for the grooming gangs - it's a giant, looming scandal but it's too closely associated with people salivating over the prospect of a race war. My legitimate concern about it has been crowded out by twats with an ulterior motive.
(I regularly stay in grand Victorian hunting lodges. They have similarly been converted into 12-bed dorms as part of the SYHA.)
Yet they have billions to spend on illegal immigrants.
He's almost a pastiche stereotype of an establishment liberal, working in a cosy job in a university where everyone thinks exactly like him, and he's entirely tone-deaf to any other point of view - which he considers entirely illegitimate.
She also taught anyone paying attention a valuable lesson. The UK government is not sovereign for so long as we want to live on other peoples money. It’s a lesson Reeves would do well not to forget.
She monumentally screwed up trying to do it all in execution and presentation and we all paid for that both via the immediate collywobbles and the route we were forced down by the climbing down and are stuck in now.
Politically I'm homeless. I really don't see hope in anything on offer. The odd thing gets me excited then usually falls apart on closer inspection. I feel we are constantly being told we've never had it so good by the soilman as he dumps this weeks turds into our pit
William III
George I
But then, I think, actually maybe that is the problem. By the mainstream failing to talk about an issue, it is only taken up by those who may have agendas.
WFA is a good example of the opposite. Almost every pensioner I know has mentioned it to me in the past few months. Even those who supported the cut, mention it. No one considered it taboo.
The 'you can't say that' effect on politics has been incredibly bad for the well-meaning majority of the country.
But it'd almost be worth expending the CapEx on LED lights to save the OpEx on fluorescents.
I suspect there's something else going on here about fixtures, fittings, electrical circuits or the clinical safety case (maybe) of changing the lighting regime.
Or it's some silly FM contract straitjacketing what the Trust does, and maybe some Union issues on top.
A lot of bureaucracies make it too hard to get anything done.
It's not that the DfE couldn't save 5-10% without impacting on students' knowledge, character and resilience, it's that they wouldn't. Pretending that they (should) have the same incentives as a private company just won't work.
I don't really know the answer, other than a cultural change which would make civil servants constantly aware that any time they spend money within DfE it is money intended to impact students' education positively. I believe we could get that if we as taxpayers were better able to follow our taxes through e.g. the DfE to know precisely what they are spent on.
Which is why Stride is saying it.
As you've highlighted, many people are being classed as Other who are White British. This feeds a particular narrative of "white decline". The particular mistake here is conflating British with English or Celtic.
The Tories might as well do this, it will placate the few people that really care. But I doubt it will move them by a single point in the polls, and it will be forgotten by the time of the next election, anyway
No, me neither.
My guess is, regardless of how we cut it, those as White-European or White-Other will self-identify as White British inside 30 years.
Just as Irish and French Hugenot immigrants (hello, family Farage) now do so.
Living out of a single room, even if the wallpaper is nice, is not a great existence. Asylum seekers do not live in luxury. They have pretty shitty lives. I thought this was an interesting video: https://youtu.be/jj43vrflFIA
The UK is spending too much on housing asylum seekers this way. https://migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/asylum-accommodation-in-the-uk/ discusses this and what other countries do. It’s a problem that arose because of how the previous Conservative government mishandled the situation. But the facilities asylum seekers get are not better than millions of people in this country.
I see the Cameron party reforms, A lists (by which we got Truss!
A large caucus of Tory MPs (possibly over half) are now simply conviction Lib Dems. And when Reform come in with Tory policies and Tories turn round and say 'Why aren't we doing that?', they say 'don't ape Reform'. It's a mess.
Boris actually did a great job getting rid of much of this element the PCP, but the replacements selected by CCHQ seem to have been identical in outlook if not further left.
It won't recover till it guts CCHQ and starts from scratch, and there's a radical decentralisation of power back to local associations.
and the causality is: spending --> taxes, so start with the spending