Howdy, Stranger!

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

Options

One year on from the election – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,555
edited July 4 in General
One year on from the election – politicalbetting.com

? It’s the anniversary of Labour’s election win. The Government had some early stumbles, but what do the public think is their biggest mistake? Asked to say in their own words, it’s one of the most stark word clouds we’ve seen. Winter Fuel Allowance drowns everything else out.

Read the full story here

«13456

Comments

  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,974
    Says it all really
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043
    Eng and Ind are the same price to win now.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,502
    I never knew a word cloud could be funny until I saw the 2nd one, here
  • isamisam Posts: 42,140
    Compared to the last two post GE PM’s, Starmer has had it pretty easy in his first year as well
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,430
    FPT
    MattW said:

    scampi25 said:

    eek said:

    Reform are controlling what books Kent Libraries can buy and vetoing transgender related books

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o

    Excellent news.
    It's a strange one. The Council Leader's justification for banning books is "I was contacted by a concerned member of the public."

    ONE member of the public?

    They need to learn to work democratically for their whole community.
    Particularly ironic given how much GB News has been complaining about books being removed from libraries after a single 'woke' complaint.
  • JohnLilburneJohnLilburne Posts: 6,837
    kinabalu said:

    Eng and Ind are the same price to win now.

    People seem to expect bazball shenanigans from us
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 30,275

    FPT

    MattW said:

    scampi25 said:

    eek said:

    Reform are controlling what books Kent Libraries can buy and vetoing transgender related books

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o

    Excellent news.
    It's a strange one. The Council Leader's justification for banning books is "I was contacted by a concerned member of the public."

    ONE member of the public?

    They need to learn to work democratically for their whole community.
    Particularly ironic given how much GB News has been complaining about books being removed from libraries after a single 'woke' complaint.
    That's not the same at all, is it?
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,448

    FPT

    MattW said:

    scampi25 said:

    eek said:

    Reform are controlling what books Kent Libraries can buy and vetoing transgender related books

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c6257p2vry3o

    Excellent news.
    It's a strange one. The Council Leader's justification for banning books is "I was contacted by a concerned member of the public."

    ONE member of the public?

    They need to learn to work democratically for their whole community.
    Particularly ironic given how much GB News has been complaining about books being removed from libraries after a single 'woke' complaint.
    Perhaps they have been learning.

    From the way that angry men in corduroy trousers with bicycle clips hold up housing, roads, hospitals etc. Several of the attempts to do something about Hammersmith bridge have been blocked by single digit numbers of people.

    Weaponised NIMBYism…
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,869
    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    edited July 4
    kinabalu said:

    Eng and Ind are the same price to win now.

    84 for 5 to 379 for 5 in the space of 5 hours. Incredible performance.

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/cricket/live/clyw9g1j74gt#Scorecard
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    Any politician weighing in on this, who has not been campaigning for radical reform of the CCRC for the last half decade at least, is simply a grandstanding arse.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 62,502
    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    I have no firm opinion either way on the Letby case. I’ve not read it in detail (I find it all quite distressing - we are talking every parent’s most hideous nightmare)

    However I only note this. I have one friend who has read the entire case and all the attendant materials. His politics (if it matters, does it?) are decidedly Centrist Dad

    His perspective is that the case against her is notably flawed and he is seriously worried she’s innocent

    Why does his random opinion matter?

    Because he’s one of the leading forensic psychologists in the UK, much called upon as an expert witness in the courts. This stuff is what he DOES
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,608
    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    If Our Queen gets off she should go on Strictly and win it. That feels like the type of thing that could happen in 2025 UK.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,608
    England can still win this match by an innings.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    There is no way that's going to happen.
    But it would be very funny if it did.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,974
    England save follow on

    303 partnership
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,974
    And wicket - Harry Brook gone for 158
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    England save follow on

    303 partnership

    Only the second ever 5th wicket 300+ partnership for England.
  • TheuniondivvieTheuniondivvie Posts: 44,204

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
  • TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 44,033
    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    If Our Queen gets off she should go on Strictly and win it. That feels like the type of thing that could happen in 2025 UK.
    6.30pm Wednesday Radio 4 comedy slot, surely.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I did my best, but the TSE mockers are too powerful.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    Damn, Brook goes for 158.

    Cameron Norrie has taken the first set on a tie-breaker.
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 14,608
    TOPPING said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    If Our Queen gets off she should go on Strictly and win it. That feels like the type of thing that could happen in 2025 UK.
    6.30pm Wednesday Radio 4 comedy slot, surely.
    Can't do it. I play 5 a side on Wednesday nights.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,637
    Sunday papers are going to be brutal for Reeves me thinks.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Commentator's curse.
  • RochdalePioneersRochdalePioneers Posts: 30,567
    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,402
    Dura_Ace said:

    tlg86 said:

    FPT:

    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    HYUFD said:

    Lucy Letby is a 'scapegoat' who must have a retrial says Reform leader Nigel Farage
    https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/35687079/lucy-letby-convenient-scapegoat-farage/

    Oh dear oh dear. I suppose they've polled it and found that RUK curious types, having applied their formidable powers of research, analysis and logic to the evidence of the case, are of the view that Lucy was framed by the medical and legal elites in order to save their own sorry ass.
    Knowing the way many institutions can work, I would be unsurprised if Letby was innocent and had been scapegoated for procedural and other failures at the hospital. But I would also be unsurprised if Letby had committed the crimes, and potentially more. Some people are evil and/or sick enough to do such crimes.

    I simply don't know.
    You'd be equally unsurprised by her being guilty or innocent?

    That is tantamount to saying the trial and verdict holds no weight for you.

    Is that what you really mean?
    I have no opinion on the Letby case as I have no real knowledge beyond the basic story in the media.

    But as a general observation, anyone who thinks that miscarriages of justice do not happen and who bases their opinions simply on the fact a guilty case was returned is really dangerously naive.
    They absolutely do happen; however, I keep thinking how remarkable it would be if it were the case with Letby. It's not like they've got the wrong person (at least, those arguing for her are arguing that no murders/attempted murders took place) and it's not like the post office scandal.

    Yes, I know there's been issues with stats etc. before, but I get the sense everyone involved with the case was acutely aware of that.

    That's not to say that there definitely hasn't been a miscarriage of justice here. But, I think those who are so certain that there has been are being irresponsible.
    If Our Queen gets off she should go on Strictly and win it. That feels like the type of thing that could happen in 2025 UK.
    She not exactly Love Island Material so Strictly makes sense.

    Or that thing where they kill a load of innocent animals in the Australian bush might be her bag. Watching the other people on it sleeping with one eye open would be a new twist.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    .

    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666

    Completely rational, as someone was assuring us earlier.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    With his usual grace.

    Trump on Democrats who voted against GOP megabill: ‘I hate them’
    https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5385217-trump-on-democrats-who-voted-against-gop-megabill-i-hate-them/
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,608

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I have faith in the batting ability of Chris Woakes.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 6,402
    Foxy said:

    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666

    ICE is cheaper than a lawyer...
    All those chaps with non documented mistresses sorted when they want to end things without it all going Fatal Attraction.
  • eekeek Posts: 30,521
    Foxy said:

    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666

    ICE is cheaper than a lawyer...
    And probably saves a fortune in maintenance costs
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 39,023

    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666

    Perhaps he's glad to be rid of her.
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,637
    Norrie - 2 sets
  • rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 66,637
    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like. They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government! No other issue gets a mention.

    Sorry, customer always right bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    As you say, messing with it was bad politics. Actually more than that. It was appalling stupid politics.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I have faith in the batting ability of Chris Woakes.
    Out next over, then.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    boulay said:

    Foxy said:

    Man votes for Trump. His wife gets abducted by ICE. He still supports Trump.

    No, I voted for Other People's Illegal Wives to be deported, not mine

    https://x.com/RpsAgainstTrump/status/1940989438936731666

    ICE is cheaper than a lawyer...
    All those chaps with non documented mistresses sorted when they want to end things without it all going Fatal Attraction.
    The ghost of Thomas Jefferson looks down and nods...
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    Stupid shot from Woakes when Smith is trying to get a double century.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 35,144
    Nigelb said:

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I have faith in the batting ability of Chris Woakes.
    Out next over, then.
    He is!
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,726

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I have faith in the batting ability of Chris Woakes.
    Hmm
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,608
    DavidL said:

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    Siberia or France?
    I have faith in the batting ability of Chris Woakes.
    Hmm
    Look, I am trying to see if my magic still works.

    I predict the Aussies will win the Ashes this winter.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,974
    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week

    Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism

    Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy

    I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    Carse goes LBW on review.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,726
    England suddenly in serious trouble looking at a very large deficit with 2 days left.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like. They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government! No other issue gets a mention.

    Sorry, customer always right bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    As you say, messing with it was bad politics. Actually more than that. It was appalling stupid politics.
    It was a good reform imo and I think they should have ridden it out.

    The welfare cuts, otoh, I do not agree with.
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,719
    People knowing about it doesn't necessarily mean they're against what Labour did about it initially. But after the reinstatement even the people who were all for the restrictions will be miffed about it.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week

    Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism

    Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy

    I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
    It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,726
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week

    Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism

    Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy

    I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
    It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
    That's telephone banking for you.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 55,448

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like. They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government! No other issue gets a mention.

    Sorry, customer always right bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    As you say, messing with it was bad politics. Actually more than that. It was appalling stupid politics.
    It was the way it was messed with that was bad politics.

    Big Benefit reform - all the old age benefits (including WFA) go in the blender. New benefit system comes out - “Simpler, fairer, more money for poor pensioners. Pensioner poverty will reduced by x. Pensioners on £50,000 a year don’t need government help.”

  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,726
    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,018
    edited July 4
    DavidL said:

    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.

    That is pretty hilarious. Not as hilarious as India in the last match getting 5 centuries and losing, something not done in 60,000 first class games, but pretty good.

    If even 1 other person had played their part England might have ended up only 100 down, which was achievable, but oh well.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
    I agree; they should.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,869
    kle4 said:

    DavidL said:

    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.

    That is pretty hilarious. Not as hilarious as India in the last match getting 5 centuries and losing, something not done in 60,000 first class games, but pretty good.

    If even 1 other person had played their part England might have ended up only 100 down, which was achievable, but oh well.
    Oh it was all first class cricket re 5 hundreds? Ouch!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    DavidL said:

    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.

    First innings in history with 5 ducks and 2 scores of 150+
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    edited July 4
    DavidL said:

    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.


    S Africa v Bangladesh 2008.

    (edit)
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,527
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Ending the triple lock does not save any money in the short term, not until the next year the triple lock would have led to a bigger rise than whatever formula replaces it. If you want immediate savings from pensions then end higher rate tax relief on contributions and see the money roll in every month.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    What an anticlimactic way for the final wicket to fall. No shot.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,869
    Make it six...
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,526
    Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 56,060
    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    Surely the obvious lesson is that people prefer specific payments to regular benefits.

    We could abolish the state pension and replace it with a Spring Equinox Payment, a Summer Holiday payment, a Harvest Festival Payment, a Christmas Payment, a New Year Bonus, etc.

    Do the same with other benefits and reform the whole system.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 55,726
    That 4 at the end of the previous over proved extremely expensive. Smith has been brilliant but he needs to learn to hog the strike when playing with the tail.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 99,018
    tlg86 said:

    Make it six...

    Not a bad score considering only two batters did anything!
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    Very disappointing for Smith to be left hanging on 184 not out, would have loved him to get his double-century.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    DavidL said:

    Is this the fifth duck of an innings of 400+. Must be a record.

    6 is a record, though.

    Bangladesh came close.
    https://www.espncricinfo.com/series/sri-lanka-in-bangladesh-2022-1308485/bangladesh-vs-sri-lanka-2nd-test-1308489/full-scorecard
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 36,121
    edited July 4

    Very disappointing for Smith to be left hanging on 184 not out, would have loved him to get his double-century.

    He made a slight error in not farming the strike at the end.

    England can now bowl India out for 200 and score 380 to win.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    Very disappointing for Smith to be left hanging on 184 not out, would have loved him to get his double-century.

    Great for his average, though.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    Extras at 19 joint 4th highest score.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 31,527

    Sunday papers are going to be brutal for Reeves me thinks.

    Reeves' problem is this image will haunt her and perhaps even define her like Neil Kinnock slipping over on the beach or Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich.
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 122,608
    Based on these two tests I can only conclude that India are a better bowling team without Bumrah.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
    I agree; they should.
    Could backfire but a game changer either way.

    Political bazball.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    Andy_JS said:

    Very disappointing for Smith to be left hanging on 184 not out, would have loved him to get his double-century.

    He made a slight error in not farming the strike at the end.

    England can now bowl India out for 200 and score 380 to win.
    170-2 then 200 all out would be the way this Indian team seems to bat were it to happen.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 26,869
    Today is why test cricket is the best.
  • Sunil_PrasannanSunil_Prasannan Posts: 54,840
    edited July 4

    Based on these two tests I can only conclude that India are a better bowling team without Bumrah.

    I remember Bumrah from kids' TV back in '80s. Such innocent fun!

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BqWmkQziD8&t=4s
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    edited July 4
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
    I agree; they should.
    Could backfire but a game changer either way.

    Political bazball.
    The economics make a lot of sense.
    Biggest impact on the deficit for the least hit to growth.

    Reeves might as well; it's not as though she has much to lose, and it might rescue her Chancellorship.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 65,974
    kinabalu said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It must be hard being a Labour supporter at this time, but WFP was the right policy badly sold, then u turns a plenty, then the shambles of this week

    Starmer is weak when the country needs a PM with conviction to actually stand by their decisions, and not capitulate when under criticism

    Whilst sympathy for Reeves unfortunately for her that picture of her in distress will be her defining legacy

    I wanted Starmer to live up to his pre election integrity and have strength to dig in when under pressure but he is simply another poor PM and the word clouds reflect public opinion very well
    It's always hard being a Labour supporter. Many are called, few stay the course.
    You should try being a conservative supporter over the last few years !!!!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 51,999
    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Ending the triple lock does not save any money in the short term, not until the next year the triple lock would have led to a bigger rise than whatever formula replaces it. If you want immediate savings from pensions then end higher rate tax relief on contributions and see the money roll in every month.
    But what it does do is improve the medium term deficit forecasts - and removes one policy straightjacket.

    Other measures will almost certainly be necessary, and a harsh budget in November is almost certain. It would be one way of reducing the resulting damage to growth.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    Foxy said:

    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

    Electorate decisive as ever.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    Surely the obvious lesson is that people prefer specific payments to regular benefits.

    We could abolish the state pension and replace it with a Spring Equinox Payment, a Summer Holiday payment, a Harvest Festival Payment, a Christmas Payment, a New Year Bonus, etc.

    Do the same with other benefits and reform the whole system.
    That's better, W. Back on form.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
    I agree; they should.
    Could backfire but a game changer either way.

    Political bazball.
    The economics make a lot of sense.
    Biggest impact on the deficit for the least hit to growth.

    Reeves might as well; it's not as though she has much to lose, and it might rescue her Chancellorship.
    And if it backfires, Starmer can sack her to limit the damage...
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,719

    Sunday papers are going to be brutal for Reeves me thinks.

    Reeves' problem is this image will haunt her and perhaps even define her like Neil Kinnock slipping over on the beach or Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich.
    Great for her memoirs/autobiography, though.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934

    Sunday papers are going to be brutal for Reeves me thinks.

    Reeves' problem is this image will haunt her and perhaps even define her like Neil Kinnock slipping over on the beach or Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich.
    Surely you haven't forgotten the Edstone ?
  • AnneJGPAnneJGP Posts: 3,719
    Foxy said:

    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

    Even the polling will need to turn away from FPTP.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 33,430

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    You had to say it didn't you. :(
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 55,320
    Nigelb said:

    Sunday papers are going to be brutal for Reeves me thinks.

    Reeves' problem is this image will haunt her and perhaps even define her like Neil Kinnock slipping over on the beach or Ed Miliband eating a bacon sandwich.
    Surely you haven't forgotten the Edstone ?
    The Edstone will be on his gravestone.

    If not his gravestone itself.
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 46,043
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    kinabalu said:

    Says it all really

    But what does it say?

    The WFA. Everybody knows it was a top top political gimmick from Gordon Brown. Rather than simply increase the pension, do this instead, create the impression of the government popping into the home of an elderly person freezing in winter and turning on the heater. "There you go, dear. All is well."

    Such a brilliant gimmick that every government since has defied logic and all impartial advice in order to not mess with it. Too scared to do so. Gordon's conceit would be reversed and bite you in the bum. The government stops by that elderly person in winter and turns the heater off. Brrrr. Terrible optics. So let's carry on giving these annual lump sums to millions of people who don't need it. Bad policy, good politics.

    Finally someone bites the bullet and changes it. Hang the politics let's do the right thing. £££ only to those who really need it. And what happens? Of course support from the public is an unrealistic ask since it is a takeaway. But it's well-known money is tight so do the public surprise on the upside by at least being a little bit sanguine about it? Do they hellers like! They are so pissed off it forms their entire view of the government. No other issue gets even a mention.

    Sorry, 'customer always right' bla bla, but I find it kind of pathetic.
    It was a stupid risk to take for a relatively minor saving, and has tied them in knots fur months.
    They should have bitten the bullet and picked the triple lock.
    Might as well do it now. In for a penny ...
    I agree; they should.
    Could backfire but a game changer either way.

    Political bazball.
    The economics make a lot of sense.
    Biggest impact on the deficit for the least hit to growth.

    Reeves might as well; it's not as though she has much to lose, and it might rescue her Chancellorship.
    And if it backfires, Starmer can sack her to limit the damage...
    Yep. Rough old business. She can go and cry on the back benches.
  • kamskikamski Posts: 6,459
    Jeez, nothing changes.
    Discussions about cricket and opinion polls, and ZERO comments on today's biggest news:

    180 degree U-turn on Cologne's plan to rename "playgrounds" as "Spiel- und Aktionsflächen"

    https://www.ksta.de/koeln/koeln-stadtrat-will-spielplaetze-nun-wohl-doch-nicht-umbenennen-1057672

    https://www.ksta.de/koeln/spielplatz-diskussion-in-koeln-ob-kandidaten-aeussern-sich-1058071

    „Herzlichen Glückwunsch, jetzt ist Köln auch offiziell die Hauptstadt der Bekloppten“
  • DopermeanDopermean Posts: 1,220

    England can still win this match by an innings.

    You had to say it didn't you. :(
    They needed to make more of the 20 overs before the new ball. Always a good chance that Siraj and Deep would get one of them with the new ball then run through the tail.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    Leon said:

    The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/crying-women-workplace-tears-rachel-reeves

    Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to say they won't raise National Insurance before the election, then immediately raise it after the election.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to bang on about a 'black hole' in the finances of a fraction of the deficit, then ignore the deficit from then on.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to cut unnecessary welfare expenditure then after a year of bad headlines reverse that cut.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to insist upon major disability welfare reform, then back down at vote at the last minute because a defeat was pending.

    Showing human emotions? Not pathetic.

    Get a sense of perspective. Reeves is awful at her job, but showing emotions is not the reason why she is awful.
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 78,934
    Anyone going to the Great Soccer ?

    https://x.com/Acyn/status/1940938908487102593
    TRUMP: "I got the Olympics and I got the Great Soccer. We call it soccer. They call it football."
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 40,268

    Leon said:

    The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/crying-women-workplace-tears-rachel-reeves

    Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to say they won't raise National Insurance before the election, then immediately raise it after the election.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to bang on about a 'black hole' in the finances of a fraction of the deficit, then ignore the deficit from then on.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to cut unnecessary welfare expenditure then after a year of bad headlines reverse that cut.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to insist upon major disability welfare reform, then back down at vote at the last minute because a defeat was pending.

    Showing human emotions? Not pathetic.

    Get a sense of perspective. Reeves is awful at her job, but showing emotions is not the reason why she is awful.
    Crying because she can't handle the consequences of her poor decision making is pretty pathetic. If that was a male chancellor who had done that he would be being rinsed by the media and the voters. Reeves will get let off much more easily by being virtue of being a woman. If she can't handle the pressure of the role then it's time for her to resign.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 128,526
    Foxy said:

    While the header is undeniably bad for Starmer, this polling out today is more positive:

    https://bsky.app/profile/yougov.co.uk/post/3lt5ldggzy22h

    Not much love for the alternative either.

    No, that is great news for the Tories, if they can win back most of the 33% who now want to bring back Rishi as PM that would almost double their current voteshare
  • kjhkjh Posts: 12,827
    edited July 4
    HYUFD said:

    Yes keeping the WFA cut was so politically damaging Labour had no alternative but to abandon it for average income pensioners. So only wealthier pensioners saw a cut to their WFA

    Not all wealthy pensioners. I am going to get it and I am definitely in the wealth category. Many of us live off of savings and investments so will now still get the WFA as there isn't a capital test. This is a mistake as was the U turn.
  • BartholomewRobertsBartholomewRoberts Posts: 25,067
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    The guardian is trying manfully to normalise Rachel’s Tears. Trouble is it’s trying to simultaneously say “this is regular female behaviour when you lose control” while claiming the tears meant nothing, she hasn’t lost control, it’s all good

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/04/crying-women-workplace-tears-rachel-reeves

    Fact is. it’s absolutely pathetic to break down in tears on the job if you are Chancellor of the Exchequer, especially live on TV. No ifs no buts. Get a grip or resign

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to say they won't raise National Insurance before the election, then immediately raise it after the election.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to bang on about a 'black hole' in the finances of a fraction of the deficit, then ignore the deficit from then on.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to cut unnecessary welfare expenditure then after a year of bad headlines reverse that cut.

    It is absolutely pathetic for a Chancellor to insist upon major disability welfare reform, then back down at vote at the last minute because a defeat was pending.

    Showing human emotions? Not pathetic.

    Get a sense of perspective. Reeves is awful at her job, but showing emotions is not the reason why she is awful.
    Crying because she can't handle the consequences of her poor decision making is pretty pathetic. If that was a male chancellor who had done that he would be being rinsed by the media and the voters. Reeves will get let off much more easily by being virtue of being a woman. If she can't handle the pressure of the role then it's time for her to resign.
    She should resign because she's shit at her job and done an awful job.

    Her tears are neither here nor there. Getting emotional is a non-story, her damage to the UK economy and our finances is why she should be gone.
Sign In or Register to comment.