Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

Two NYC bets you should be making – politicalbetting.com

12467

Comments

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419

    Taz said:

    Tears, Sarah-Jane

    ‘A tear just rolled down the Chancellor’s cheek at #PMQs as the PM refuses to answer whether or not she’ll stay in her job.

    Hayfever, or something else?’

    https://x.com/paulbranditv/status/1940369217574101264?s=61

    On a human level, leaving aside the politics, I hope she is OK.
    She's very clearly not, shes hunched over like she cannot wait to be anywhere else.
    A very public front bench collapse might be on its way
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 79,720
    Must be a high pollen count in the HoC chamber today.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494
    slade said:

    An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.

    Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651

    Ouch. Starmer on Reeves 'and we are grateful to her for it' like a speech at a leaving do
    She's sat there, bags under the eyes, hunched back looking incredibly uncomfortable. She's utterly fooked

    Looks broken. Politics is a rough old trade as, I think, Alan Watkins used to observe.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 19,405
    This is a fascinating period of politics. I think rather too many assumed that the countries problems would just evaporate when the awful Tories were booted out. I'm pretty sure the Starmer's mob thought that too and that ruling would be easy.

    Its not.

    There are some huge challenges, and frankly failing to get flagship policies through when you have a huge majority in your first year in office is not a good sign.

    I know the Tories were not the best, but maybe they were playing the politics version of the Kobayashi Maru, and now its Labours turn.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419

    Front bench falling apart live on TV.
    Wow, they are so utterly screwed

    “We are grateful to her for it” sounds like something a boss would say in a leaving presentation for an employee, but isn’t particularly sad to see them go.
    Yep, I mentioned that line too, it was so cold.
    This is after Kemi said 'how sad for the chancellor that he cant say she will keep her job'

    He's made her sit there next to him in that state and hes probably going to sack her. What a piece of shit.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,978
    Quick reminder for Republican officials, who seem to need a refresher today:

    If you think a bill is bad, you vote NO.
    If you think it’s good, you vote YES.

    You do NOT vote for things you deem a failure.

    https://x.com/AOC/status/1940203419614302447
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651
    dixiedean said:

    Further to last night.
    The Dalai Lama has released his rebirth plan.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jul/02/dalai-lama-says-there-will-be-search-for-his-successor-ending-years-of-speculation

    TL:DR. It'll happen. It won't be in China.

    How long before Trump tweets that it should be him?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include

    - Closure for the victims and then family of victims
    - Public statement of what happened
    - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
    - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.

    In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
    Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).

    The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
    What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?

    Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
    That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,117
    edited July 2
    Taz said:

    What’s the justification for this decision. It seems crazy. Entry level jobs are shrivelling and just adding more people, especially with AI coming, seems barmy to me.

    Are we replacing the Boriswave with the Starmerwave.


    ‘ UK visa revamp allows lower-skilled office workers to come to Britain’

    https://x.com/ft/status/1940135225389879788?s=61

    (...cut to viewcode spotlit on the centre of the floor, rocking back and forth in the foetal position, muttering "they don't know how to fly the plane, they don't know how to fly the plane" over and over again. The room gets darker...)
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494
    isam said:

    Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024

    In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".

    https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    Taz said:

    slade said:

    An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.

    Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
    Not impossible they lose both.
    Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office

    Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
    No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,133
    I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.

    There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.

    Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    Rayner totally poker faced, Nandy shaking her head as the PM speaks then remembering herself and going full nodding like a bobble head
    Yeah, all is well in Labour land
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,162
    edited July 2
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include

    - Closure for the victims and then family of victims
    - Public statement of what happened
    - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
    - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.

    In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
    Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).

    The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
    What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?

    Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
    That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
    It will be very 'interesting' to see which health professionals as opposed to health service managers are in the dock. NHS professionals tend to stick together, in rower individual professional units, until the moment comes to throw someone under the bus.

    I do agree, though, that the parents of babies involved have a right to know what happened.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,188
    Wow, people weren't exaggerating about Reeves.

    On the discussion around millionaires fleeing the country, I understand the arguments around VAT, income tax they pay etc etc. I just recognise the cognitive dissonance of making that argument as a reason not to close a tax loophole.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
    No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
    You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    Sky featuring on Reeves and says all the questions now are on her future

    This is a moment of intense peril for Starmer adds Sam Coates
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494

    Taz said:

    slade said:

    An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.

    Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
    Not impossible they lose both.
    Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
    It’s not impossible the Greens will win. It’s unlikely.

    But thanks for your insight. I’m sure it’s as valuable as your pronouncements on the Iran-Israel conflict.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494

    I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.

    There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.

    Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...

    I’m watching Mr McMahon on Netflix. Batshit
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651

    Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office

    About an hour?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,573

    This is a fascinating period of politics. I think rather too many assumed that the countries problems would just evaporate when the awful Tories were booted out. I'm pretty sure the Starmer's mob thought that too and that ruling would be easy.

    Its not.

    There are some huge challenges, and frankly failing to get flagship policies through when you have a huge majority in your first year in office is not a good sign.

    I know the Tories were not the best, but maybe they were playing the politics version of the Kobayashi Maru, and now its Labours turn.

    The country has some big problems, but when I look at recent British politics I can't help but feel that the country's leaders have played a poor hand very badly.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052
    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    ...Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing...

    ...and very difficult to do.

    Much as I hate chinless wonders being given a Ford Fiesta by their rich parents and then wrapping it around a tree, rich parents will always try to give an advantage to their spoilt offspring and I don't see a way of stopping them. The best way to handle it is redistributive taxation on the rich parents and assisted places for poor children. Stuff like imposing VAT on private school is just being mean.
    Let's not make it even more difficult by widening the scope beyond education! Parents will for many things in life use their resources to the benefit of their kids. Stopping that equals soulless inhuman totalitarianism. Appalling thought. I recoil from that as much as anyone.

    No, what I'm talking about is eliminating their ability to do this in one area only - the purchase of greater educational opportunity for their offspring. This is a prerequisite of a high quality egalitarian schooling system. Which once in place will be transformational for us.

    If you allow the most wealthy and influential to opt out, it never happens. The "let's make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" is an avoidance argument (unless you're prepared to equalise the spend/pupil). And the "all you'll get is high house prices round good schools" is weary nitpickery.

    Course it's hard to do what I'm suggesting - it's hard to do anything these days - but I really wish we'd have a bash at it.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    Starmer has managed, by refusing to back a chancellor in tears hes forced to sit next to him, to make himself look a complete bastard when he sacks her or she resigns
    He's not up to the job
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,344
    Taz said:

    isam said:

    Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024

    In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".

    https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
    To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.

    Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.

    * a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,978
    If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.

    Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,117
    isam said:

    Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024

    In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".

    https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    In the comments of that email there is this thread. Also prescient.

    @GeorgeAylett
    22 May 2024

    With the election on July 4th, it’s important that people are reminded about what Keir Starmer has publicly said over the last few years and what he would do with political power.

    Keir Starmer would be an awful Prime Minister and he does not deserve your vote.

    Here’s why


    https://xcancel.com/GeorgeAylett/status/1793363760947609764#m
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,117
    BBC: "Green MP Adrian Ramsay asks Starmer whether the government will scrap the two-child benefit cap, after his climbdown on welfare."

    Surely the Greens should be discouraging people having lots of children, in order to protect the planet?

    Oh, sorry, for a moment I was thinking they were environmentalists.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    Sam Coates just asked a Labour mp

    'Hand on heart, do you think Rachel Reeves will be Chancellor next week, next month, next year

    Yes

    The media see a "gotcha" and this is not good for Reeves

    Why on earth did she put herself through this?
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052
    Pagan2 said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    it sounds like you long for the world of Harrison Bergeron
    I'm going to risk saying 'no' to this. I've only read S5.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494
    Eabhal said:

    Wow, people weren't exaggerating about Reeves.

    On the discussion around millionaires fleeing the country, I understand the arguments around VAT, income tax they pay etc etc. I just recognise the cognitive dissonance of making that argument as a reason not to close a tax loophole.

    ‘Loophole’ 🤔
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601
    Nigelb said:

    If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.

    Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.

    Major survived 4 years as PM after sacking Lamont as his chancellor, depends who he appoints
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,676
    Nigelb said:

    If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.

    Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.

    The signs have been there for while that it looks like he’s going to pivot leftwards.

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    Taz said:

    Taz said:

    slade said:

    An interesting set of local by-elections this week. Today we have a double Lab defence in North Tyneside. Tomorrow we have Con defences in Gedling, Hammersmith and Fulham, and Suffolk and Lib Dem defences in BANES and Powys. Finally we have a novelty - Ref defences in Durham and Nottinghamshire.

    Could labour sneak the one in Durham. The polls have narrowed since it was contested and reform only won by a small amount and there was a popular independent who can be squeezed.
    Not impossible they lose both.
    Polls haven't narrowed though, Labour were on 26 and within 1 or tied in the two polls taken over polling day
    It’s not impossible the Greens will win. It’s unlikely.

    But thanks for your insight. I’m sure it’s as valuable as your pronouncements on the Iran-Israel conflict.
    Uh huh. Noted.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    So you back bringing back grammar schools then UK wide of course
    No, we won't be doing that, H.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,978

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024

    In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".

    https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
    To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.

    Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.

    * a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
    It's hardly just the media.

    A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 46,133

    tlg86 said:

    Ultimately, Starmer is paying the price for lying his way to the leadership of the Labour Party.

    Anyone who wanted the measure of Starmer only had to watch him sit beside Corbyn for years, during which antisemitism was rife, all the while saying nothing, certainly not resigning.
    TBF Starmer did resign in 2016, as part of the large group of ministers who resigned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_British_shadow_cabinet_resignations

    Although that was not over anti-Semitism, and Starmer rejoined as a minister shortly afterwards.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
    No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
    You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
    Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?

    And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
    Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 23,117
    So, Leicester Liz for Chancellor?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,092
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.

    Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.

    Major survived 4 years as PM after sacking Lamont as his chancellor, depends who he appoints
    Do Labour have a Ken Clarke?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    The purpose of criminal convictions, in general include

    - Closure for the victims and then family of victims
    - Public statement of what happened
    - Publicly assigning responsibility to the criminal
    - Recognition that a crime was committed and could possibly have been stopped.

    In addition, here, sorting out deaths caused by ill intent from those caused by negligence has value.
    Which has already been done given Letby has been convicted and got a whole life order (assuming the verdict was correct and truthers wrong).

    The CPS are just wasting taxpayers money trying to bring more charges against her which could go on convicting criminals who are not already in jail for the rest of their lives
    What about the parents of other children who may have been murdered?

    Justice isnt just locking up the guilty.
    That could be covered in the wider inquiry, the criminal law should only be focused on punishing the guilty and in Letby's case the maximum punishment has already been given
    It will be very 'interesting' to see which health professionals as opposed to health service managers are in the dock. NHS professionals tend to stick together, in rower individual professional units, until the moment comes to throw someone under the bus.

    I do agree, though, that the parents of babies involved have a right to know what happened.
    Which can be done by an inquiry and gross negligence claims if appropriate against managers, not yet more virtue signalling charges v Letby
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
    No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
    You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
    Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?

    And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
    You really do not get it

    This is not about Letby but possible other victims and justice for them
  • viewcodeviewcode Posts: 25,117
    edited July 2
    Taz said:

    Tears, Sarah-Jane

    ‘A tear just rolled down the Chancellor’s cheek at #PMQs as the PM refuses to answer whether or not she’ll stay in her job.

    Hayfever, or something else?’

    https://x.com/paulbranditv/status/1940369217574101264?s=61

    IIRC, five minutes after the line "Tears, Sarah Jane", the person had left to be replaced by somebody else...
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651
    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    2m
    The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419

    So, Leicester Liz for Chancellor?

    Hasn't she resigned yet?
    Or is that only after the 2 remaining pages of her flagship bill get scrapped?
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,573

    tlg86 said:

    Ultimately, Starmer is paying the price for lying his way to the leadership of the Labour Party.

    Anyone who wanted the measure of Starmer only had to watch him sit beside Corbyn for years, during which antisemitism was rife, all the while saying nothing, certainly not resigning.
    TBF Starmer did resign in 2016, as part of the large group of ministers who resigned.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_British_shadow_cabinet_resignations

    Although that was not over anti-Semitism, and Starmer rejoined as a minister shortly afterwards.
    I think that when a political party you are a member, or MP of, has a leader that you disagree with, the question of when to resign your membership, or refuse to serve under the leader, is not as simple a one as people make out.

    And in the case of Starmer it's also an unnecessary criticism, as there's plenty that he has done, or failed to do, as leader and PM to criticise him for.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,874
    Why is Reeves under pressure? It's not her fault that Starmer can't get the sheep through the correct lobby.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
    Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
    The quickest way to reduce educational inequality would be to force the highest IQ to marry the lowest IQ but that just means fewer higher IQ and more average IQ and most beyond the highest IQ are more interested in getting a fancy car and big house than being the next Professor at Christ Church
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,978
    HYUFD said:

    Nigelb said:

    If Reeves is to get the chop, which seems quite likely, Starmer doesn't have long to formulate a more convincing narrative with her replacement.

    Failing that, his party will be forced to confront him as the problem.

    Major survived 4 years as PM after sacking Lamont as his chancellor, depends who he appoints
    Lamont's demise coincided with the substantial boost to the economy as a result of our exit from the ERM.
    He even managed a couple of sensible innovations before getting the boot.

    It's hard to see any equivalence at all with the current position.
  • carnforthcarnforth Posts: 6,541
    Odds on the big reset involving bringing back Bad Al Campbell?
  • GarethoftheVale2GarethoftheVale2 Posts: 2,343
    While I'm not particularly a fan of Reeves, my worry is that f she goes that this will lead to a loss of credibility with the bond markets.

    The next budget could easily turn into mini budget 2.0.

    Bad for Labour of course but also bad for the country
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,222
    HYUFD said:

    Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office

    Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
    I doubt most voters care about farm IHT and employers NI.
    It'll be personal tax and cost of living.
    Note: she's already outlasted Kwarteng, Zahawi and Javid :)
    Another 17 months and she'll have outlasted Hunt and Sunak with Darling and Hammond in sight.
    I think she's been totally captured by the Treasury and that Labour could do better, but I'd be tempted by good odds on her to be longest serving CoE since Osborne.
  • SelebianSelebian Posts: 9,435
    HYUFD said:

    rcs1000 said:

    HYUFD said:


    Alex Wickham
    @alexwickham
    Senior govt sources saying this morning that by forcing the govt to abandon its welfare reforms Labour MPs have likely killed off any hope of lifting the two child benefit cap

    One says that’s a great shame for the govt’s child poverty ambitions. Starmer had wanted to lift it

    https://x.com/alexwickham/status/1940331679102706001

    Quite smart by the government that: we may have lost but we're not going to give you any satisfaction out of winning.
    At least they get a little vengeful consolation from annoying the right people (which in McSweeneyland means the left of their own party). Shame about impoverished kids but..
    Given the average UK mother has only 1.57 children now, why should they be required to fund mothers on universal credit having 3 or more children from their taxes they can't afford to? If you are going to have increased child benefit do it for all mothers.

    A wealth tax however looks very likely in the autumn as this tax rising socialist government is still not tax rising and spending enough for its red flag flying backbenchers
    I'm sorry to be a pedant, but the average UK mother has two children.

    The average (mean) number of children born to a woman of child-bearing age is 1.57.
    No if they had 2 children they would have 2.0 children, rounding up from 1.57 to 2.0 does not actually mean they have 2
    The key point here is 'mothers'. Your 1.57 stat is women of suitable age, also including non-mothers (zero children). Mothers are a subset of those and have one or more children or they wouldn't be mothers. RCS asserts that among the subset of women who are mothers the average is ~2.
  • Pagan2Pagan2 Posts: 12,157
    kinabalu said:

    viewcode said:

    kinabalu said:

    ...Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing...

    ...and very difficult to do.

    Much as I hate chinless wonders being given a Ford Fiesta by their rich parents and then wrapping it around a tree, rich parents will always try to give an advantage to their spoilt offspring and I don't see a way of stopping them. The best way to handle it is redistributive taxation on the rich parents and assisted places for poor children. Stuff like imposing VAT on private school is just being mean.
    Let's not make it even more difficult by widening the scope beyond education! Parents will for many things in life use their resources to the benefit of their kids. Stopping that equals soulless inhuman totalitarianism. Appalling thought. I recoil from that as much as anyone.

    No, what I'm talking about is eliminating their ability to do this in one area only - the purchase of greater educational opportunity for their offspring. This is a prerequisite of a high quality egalitarian schooling system. Which once in place will be transformational for us.

    If you allow the most wealthy and influential to opt out, it never happens. The "let's make state schools so good that nobody wants to go private" is an avoidance argument (unless you're prepared to equalise the spend/pupil). And the "all you'll get is high house prices round good schools" is weary nitpickery.

    Course it's hard to do what I'm suggesting - it's hard to do anything these days - but I really wish we'd have a bash at it.
    Purchasing a house in a good school cachement area = purchasing greater educational opportunity
    Hiring tutors = purchasing greater educational opportunity
    Purchasing books = purchasing greater education opportunity
    Taking the kids on educational trips = purchasing greater educational opportunity

    How do you plan on stopping all those exactly?
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    tlg86 said:

    Why is Reeves under pressure? It's not her fault that Starmer can't get the sheep through the correct lobby.

    The insinuation is that its her fiscal rules that are causing everything to fall apart and Infest the reforms they want to make with forced savings, cuts etc.
    They cant admit its bad ministers making bad policy so they have to conclude its bad economics making bad policy .
    If they conclude its both like much of the nation.....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Thoughts and prayers for the Letby truthers.

    CPS considering further criminal charges against Lucy Letby

    Detectives have handed over evidence related to the death and collapse of other babies at hospitals where she worked


    https://www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/lucy-letby-charges-cps-n6n7g2z5c

    What a complete waste of taxpayers money and CPS time, Letby is serving several whole life terms, what do the CPS want a judge to do, sentence a reinacarnated Letby to a new term after her death? That is assuming she is guilty of course whatever the Letby truthers say
    Good morning

    Justice for victims is never a waste of money
    What is a whole life term order already given if not justice?
    Have you even read the CPS considering further charges, and in these circumstances other victims may be involved and justice must be given to them
    She is serving a whole life order, taxpayers money should be spent on charging criminals who are not in jail already for the rest of their lives
    Rubbish
    No fact, there are not enough funds for prosecuting criminals as it is without much of it being wasted prosecuting someone already serving a whole life order anyway (and assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong)
    You really haven't a clue about justice for victims
    Letby is in prison for a whole life term, what more justice do they want, Letby to be hung drawn and quartered?

    And that is assuming she is guilty and the truthers wrong
    You really do not get it

    This is not about Letby but possible other victims and justice for them
    No I do get it, spending extra on Letby charges, who can't get any higher jail term than she has, means the CPS NOT spending funds on charging other potentially guilty criminals who are not in jail
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    tlg86 said:

    Why is Reeves under pressure? It's not her fault that Starmer can't get the sheep through the correct lobby.

    She has to find billions that are not there but also she has made terrible decisions on WFP, business and now this
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052
    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    What are you thinking of? Assisted places for finishing schools in Gstaad?
    Can you not be serious even for a minute, William. We're trying to have a vision here, tell a story, act from principles - what everyone says they want.
    The quickest way to reduce educational inequality would be to force the highest IQ to marry the lowest IQ but that just means fewer higher IQ and more average IQ and most beyond the highest IQ are more interested in getting a fancy car and big house than being the next Professor at Christ Church
    I'm giving up.

    What's the topic we're meant to be on?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601
    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    kinabalu said:

    Dopermean said:

    kinabalu said:

    Cookie said:

    tlg86 said:

    I am fairly relaxed about inequality: if someone is far richer than me, and contributes to the country, then I'm fine with that. If someone takes risks with their own money, and especially if they employ lots of people in this country, then that's great.

    But that is not all of the 'wealthy'.

    Inequality makes all of our other political disputes that much more consequential.

    If you imagine a much more equal Britain, then the question of whether to pay for healthcare via general taxation or private insurance is not as important, because most people would pay broadly the same under the two systems.

    With an unequal Britain a much larger number of people would not be able to afford to pay for a good quality of health insurance, and so the move away from general taxation funding would be a life or death issue for more people.

    It's been a massive mistake for the Left to give up on increasing equality as an objective. Although it's equally a mistake to view achieving equality as a matter of taxation and welfare policies, rather than via more fundamental economic reforms.
    What does equality look like when it comes to housing?
    If you had greater equality then I would expect that the standard of the lowest quartile of housing in Britain would be a lot higher - less mould and damp, warmer, less overcrowding, room for children to do their homework and have some privacy.

    And this would follow from people having the means to improve their own housing, rather than being reliant on government grant schemes, etc.
    ... There are interesting answers to this - @kinabalu is quite eloquent on it, and I
    am to some extent persuaded that
    inequality itself is bad (rather than the more generally understood position that absolute poverty is bad), but it is not immediately obvious why it would be the case.
    You're very sweet to me, Cookie, for someone who agrees with very little of my politics. I appreciate it :smile:
    Interesting point above about inequality not just being an issue of tax and welfare.

    a) Shareholders seem almost powerless to do anything about rampant corporate pay even when the company is being poorly managed
    b) Decline of unions / employee bargaining power has led to low pay increases / real terms reductions for those lower down the tree
    Yes. I've come to realise that the route to an egalitarian society is not purely - or even mainly - through fiscal redistribution. I am in favour of high tax and spend but there are so many issues that doesn't solve and it creates some issues of itself not all of which can be dismissed as special pleading by the 'haves'.

    Radically reducing the role of parental wealth in children's educational opportunities would be what I'd focus on if I could pick only one thing.
    So you back bringing back grammar schools then UK wide of course
    No, we won't be doing that, H.
    So just leftie hand winging as I suspected
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    carnforth said:

    Odds on the big reset involving bringing back Bad Al Campbell?

    Go full Gordon and recall Mandy from the US
  • bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 15,005

    There is a potentially serious issue here. If Letby is innocent (I don't know either way) then going after people who didn't stop her from murdering babies is going to be wrong.

    There are some on PB who remain fully convinced of her guilt - the trial was lengthy and the jury convicted.
    There are others (myself included) who have concerns about the trial.

    PB users, in the main, tend to be better at statistics than the general public. If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone. And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope.

    I see now that prosecuters are looking at other charges. So these will cases where babies died when Letby was present that were not thought suspiciuous until now. This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit.
    "If you have 20 neo-natal units then there is a chance that one of them will have more deaths than the average, simply on randomness alone." Letby had a historically long trial. The prosecution case did not go, "Look, this neo-natal unit has had more deaths than average. Here ends our case."

    "And that's without considering the possibility of other factors such as sub-standard care overall, poorly trained staff, a unit struggling to cope." There were a high number of unusual and unexpected deaths. These are not the sort of deaths that occur because of poor quality care or staff. There was evidence, accepted by the defence, that some babies had been deliberately killed.

    "This is dangerous - it wouldn't be the first time that a suspect has been identified and the evidence is then chosen to fit." This is conspiratorial thinking. You are dismissing new evidence on the grounds that you've already made up your mind. Surely new evidence should be welcomed if you are interested in the truth. Let that new evidence be examined.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    2m
    The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.

    My wife has just called Starmer a ' bastard " and she never swears
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651
    Nicholas Watt
    @nicholaswatt
    ·
    12m
    Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 19,573
    tlg86 said:

    Why is Reeves under pressure? It's not her fault that Starmer can't get the sheep through the correct lobby.

    The government's fiscal strategy is in disarray and that's her brief in Cabinet.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,601
    Dopermean said:

    HYUFD said:

    Reeves looks dreadful and you have to wonder how much longer she will be in office

    Unless a new Chancellor reverses things like the family farms and businesses tax and NI rise for employers I doubt most voters will care whether she stays or goes
    I doubt most voters care about farm IHT and employers NI.
    It'll be personal tax and cost of living.
    Note: she's already outlasted Kwarteng, Zahawi and Javid :)
    Another 17 months and she'll have outlasted Hunt and Sunak with Darling and Hammond in sight.
    I think she's been totally captured by the Treasury and that Labour could do better, but I'd be tempted by good odds on her to be longest serving CoE since Osborne.
    They do, both are unpopular in polls, Brits need to eat and employers rising NI is passed on to them with higher prices and job cuts so affects their cost of living too

  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,560
    AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH

    *chokes slightly*

    The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?

    “THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”

    Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,180
    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,874
    edited July 2

    While I'm not particularly a fan of Reeves, my worry is that f she goes that this will lead to a loss of credibility with the bond markets.

    The next budget could easily turn into mini budget 2.0.

    Bad for Labour of course but also bad for the country

    It would be very funny.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    edited July 2

    Nicholas Watt
    @nicholaswatt
    ·
    12m
    Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on

    She's probably gone in and told him to shove his job where the sun doesnt shine after his failure to support her
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,165
    @soniasodha

    At the end of the day, the buck for this political mess stops with the PM, not chancellor/Treasury. Yes, this govt feels very overly driven by traditional Treasury thinking and a total lack of political antennae, but the reason for that is the vacuum at the centre.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011

    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.

    Badenoch

    'She looks absolutely miserable and then asked if Reeves will be in post at the next election which Starmer failed to confirm'
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419

    Nicholas Watt
    @nicholaswatt
    ·
    12m
    Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on

    She's probably gone in and told him to shove his job where the sun doesnt shine after his failure to support her
    Or not. Chancellor confirms she has not resigned and is working out of Downing Street this PM
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,035

    I was watching Mad Max: Fury Road instead of PMQs.

    There might not be much difference between Labour's internal politics and the War Boys.

    Although I cannot see Starmer as Immortan Joe...

    That and Furiosa are great films.

    Immortan may be nasty, but unlike Starmer he is competent.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    Sky

    Spokesperson for Reeves

    It is a personal matter
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,188
    Scott_xP said:

    @soniasodha

    At the end of the day, the buck for this political mess stops with the PM, not chancellor/Treasury. Yes, this govt feels very overly driven by traditional Treasury thinking and a total lack of political antennae, but the reason for that is the vacuum at the centre.

    It would be good if someone could articulate what "Treasury think" is. Is it merging NICs and income tax? Means testing WFP? Flat rate of council tax? Tax allowances for investment? Abolishing stamp duty?

    I always get the sneaking suspicion that a lot of Treasury think is the kind of thing that PBers advocate for, if politically preposterous.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 39,165
    Sean_F said:

    Immortan may be nasty, but unlike Starmer he is competent.

    Umm, not very. You did watch till the end, right?
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,676

    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.

    Very good, I thought. But it was an open goal.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 66,011
    edited July 2
    PM has said Reeves has not resigned and is going nowhere

    PM has given her his full support
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 12,419
    edited July 2
    Bit of bond market movement in the wrong direction (11 basis points) but not by any shakes in Truss territory movement yet
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,035
    Nigelb said:

    Taz said:

    isam said:

    Prescient from Michael Crick, 22nd June 2024

    In two to three years time, when Starmer and his government are no doubt deeply unpopular, I hope we in the media will ask ourselves: "Why were we so supine during the long 2024 election; why didn't we hold Labour properly to account while we could, and ask more probing questions, and explore their records, rather than give them such an easy ride?".

    https://x.com/michaellcrick/status/1804622969500516439?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q

    It’s an easy answer. The media was anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.
    To be fair to the media*, the voters were anti Tory and wanted Labour to win.

    Buyers' remorse was pretty easy to predict.

    * a phrase I shan't be using ever again.
    It's hardly just the media.

    A number of our own right of centre contributors were no different - and actually voted for the government they now hold in such contempt.
    I voted for the government I held in contempt, in 2024.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,651

    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.

    Pretty solid performance and she and the party behind her seemed in better spirits.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,676

    Nicholas Watt
    @nicholaswatt
    ·
    12m
    Labour MP tells me after PMQs: There is a lot of movement outside the PM’s office [in the commons]. Something is going on

    If I were Reeves I’d be tearing him a new one for humiliating her on national television.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494
    viewcode said:

    Taz said:

    Tears, Sarah-Jane

    ‘A tear just rolled down the Chancellor’s cheek at #PMQs as the PM refuses to answer whether or not she’ll stay in her job.

    Hayfever, or something else?’

    https://x.com/paulbranditv/status/1940369217574101264?s=61

    IIRC, five minutes after the line "Tears, Sarah Jane", the person had left to be replaced by somebody else...
    Indeed, and if anyone was going to get the reference I knew it would be you !
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,035
    Scott_xP said:

    Sean_F said:

    Immortan may be nasty, but unlike Starmer he is competent.

    Umm, not very. You did watch till the end, right?
    You see how competent he is, in Furiosa.
  • numbertwelvenumbertwelve Posts: 7,676
    I think failing to publicly back Reeves in front of her face is going to be a topic for Keir’s next soft-focus newspaper confessional.
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 10,180

    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.

    Pretty solid performance and she and the party behind her seemed in better spirits.
    All this has the feeling of Black Wednesday about it: the moment when political fortunes were turned on their heads and completely irreversibly.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,560
    Wow. She doesn’t just shed one tear. She BLUBS

    I wonder if there is some deeper story?

    Either way this feels like Sunak’s speech-in-the-rain. No matter the explanation, the symbolic power is overwhelming
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,052

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    2m
    The Chancellor spent PMQs in tears. The Prime Minister acted as if nothing was happening. Never seen anything like this.

    Starmer has screwed up by not crying?
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 11,188
    edited July 2

    So how did Kemi do at PMQs? The thinking was that she had to land some lethal blows with this quality of material.

    Pretty solid performance and she and the party behind her seemed in better spirits.
    All this has the feeling of Black Wednesday about it: the moment when political fortunes were turned on their heads and completely irreversibly.
    More like the letters falling off the wall behind May. Confirms a narrative, even if there is an innocent explanation for it.
  • TazTaz Posts: 19,494
    Leon said:

    AHAHAHA AHAHAHAHAH

    *chokes slightly*

    The Chancellor was CRYING during PMQs?

    “THE ADULTS ARE IN CHARGE”

    Get tae f*ck. Get in the effin sea. These dweebs are children

    Andrew Marr and Jon Sopel, after the last election, made some rather poor comments 😂
Sign In or Register to comment.