This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
When my daughter was at university my Dad said to me something like, "imagine being old enough to have a child at university," and, quick as a flash I replied, "imagine being old enough to have a grandchild at university."
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
When my daughter was at university my Dad said to me something like, "imagine being old enough to have a child at university," and, quick as a flash I replied, "imagine being old enough to have a grandchild at university."
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
It's great being a Grandad; you can hand the child back if necessary.
It's when you're a Great-Grandad that you start to think ........
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
The sensible answer to Reform would be to develop policies to deal with the problems that are not Reform “solutions”.
Starmer has demonstrated that cosplaying Reform doesn’t work.
For example, a Labour government could change the culture from ever increasing regulation and little enforcement on employment rights and conditions.
So more inspectors (with teeth) and less bullshit in the paperwork.
This would reduce costs for the good employers and result in public court cases leading to fines and imprisonment for those who abuse - deliberately paying less than minimum wage, illegal employment etc etc.
“Enforce the Factory Acts” - that should be popular with the Labour Party and a large chunk of the country.
No performative cruelty to migrants required.
This is an area you clearly know more about than I.
I don't know what the "bullshit in the paperwork" is either - it sounds like a good idea so the question then becomes why haven't Governments of any stripe implemented what seems a sensible solution? I wonder if it's the legal aspect or a lack of manpower to carry out inspections and enforcements.
To what extent, for example, would employers create fraudulent paperwork to show they were complying with regulations and how do you then prove they aren't? In addition, some "migrants" (whatever that term actually means in this context) are often frightened, desperate people with poor English language skills. They are exploited and whether you want to call it modern slavery or not, the truth is their "life" is on many levels, controlled.
I don't know whether the law was changed after some controversy over the zealousness of the RSPCA, but I understand that they used to have the power to bring forward criminal prosecutions relating to abuse of animals.
So one innovative solution would be to give trade unions the power to initiate criminal prosecutions of employers for transgressing employment rights and law. Then the government doesn't have to worry about finding the resources to enforce this area of law, and trade unions are motivated to do a thorough job of it.
Private prosecutions for any crime are possible. You don’t need special powers.
Betting shops prosecuted fraudsters because the police were uninterested. Perhaps the supermarket chains could do something similar if they see shoplifting as anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Private prosecutions are disliked by The System.
I attended a community meeting where the police actually berated an org for doing private prosecutions.
Well the alternative is how it works in South Africa, where businesses do their own version of law enforcement and revenue protection.
Did some scuba diving with (among others) a South African chap who loved his job. Delivering luxury cars to buyers in Johannesburg.
Always avoided buddying with him. Adrenaline seeking is not optimal for thorough equipment checks.
In skydiving there is a discipline called swooping. In (perfectly accurate) summary, it involves pointing an extremely small parachute directly at the ground at around 1000 feet, spiraling it downwards as fast as possible until the last moment then allowing it to plane out over water at about 100mph such that you skim your foot through the surface of the water to create a plume of spray.
For fairly obvious reasons, pinpoint height accuracy on your starting point is advised.
About 5 or 6 years ago I was sitting in the plane next to an acquaintance. He tapped his (pinpoint height accurate) digital altimeter in annoyance as he realised it wasn't working. Being a generous chap (and with a duplicate audible in my helmet) I offered him my own wrist mounted alti.
"Nah, I'll be fine", he shrugged. Assuming he meant that he'd abort his planned swoop and land with us in the less experienced landing zone, I got on with my jump.
Next thing I know the whole drop zone is shut to allow the air ambulance to airlift said chap off the main runway. He'd 'eyeballed' the height of the start point for his swoop, hit the runway at 70 mph and broken his back and both femurs.
It's an equivalent level of inconsideration to people committing suicide in front of a tube train - took several hours before the drop zone reopened for jumping. He bought a lot of beer by way of recompense once he got out of hospital.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
I suspect those leading the Conservatives have taken a look at Johnson's 2019 arrangement with Farage and thought, "that might work for 2029". Like Starmer Labour the Conservatives have no ideology. One thing the current iteration of the Tories are aware of is one can't grift as successfully (unless one's name is Farage) from opposition.
So what happens? Reform subsume the Conservatives and call the amalgamation "Conservative Reform" and everyone is happy. Dropping the "Reform" name after a year or two is even better. Nigel Farage succeeds in his lifelong ambition of leading the Conservative Party. Proof that the mountain can come to Mohammed (not a great analogy regarding Farage).
P.S. PB Tories like HYUFD are getting great mileage out of the Ashcroft poll.
Not really happening.
Another interesting fact in the new Ashcroft poll was that while 2/3 of Reform voters said the Conservatives were their second choice party, less than half of current Conservative voters said Reform were their second choice.
Indeed a full 1/3 of Conservative voters said the Liberal Democrats were their second choice party
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
The metric always drives behaviour. Especially when wage increase and bonus is dependent on it.
Another problem comes when different teams in different departments have conflicting metrics.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
The sensible answer to Reform would be to develop policies to deal with the problems that are not Reform “solutions”.
Starmer has demonstrated that cosplaying Reform doesn’t work.
For example, a Labour government could change the culture from ever increasing regulation and little enforcement on employment rights and conditions.
So more inspectors (with teeth) and less bullshit in the paperwork.
This would reduce costs for the good employers and result in public court cases leading to fines and imprisonment for those who abuse - deliberately paying less than minimum wage, illegal employment etc etc.
“Enforce the Factory Acts” - that should be popular with the Labour Party and a large chunk of the country.
No performative cruelty to migrants required.
This is an area you clearly know more about than I.
I don't know what the "bullshit in the paperwork" is either - it sounds like a good idea so the question then becomes why haven't Governments of any stripe implemented what seems a sensible solution? I wonder if it's the legal aspect or a lack of manpower to carry out inspections and enforcements.
To what extent, for example, would employers create fraudulent paperwork to show they were complying with regulations and how do you then prove they aren't? In addition, some "migrants" (whatever that term actually means in this context) are often frightened, desperate people with poor English language skills. They are exploited and whether you want to call it modern slavery or not, the truth is their "life" is on many levels, controlled.
I don't know whether the law was changed after some controversy over the zealousness of the RSPCA, but I understand that they used to have the power to bring forward criminal prosecutions relating to abuse of animals.
So one innovative solution would be to give trade unions the power to initiate criminal prosecutions of employers for transgressing employment rights and law. Then the government doesn't have to worry about finding the resources to enforce this area of law, and trade unions are motivated to do a thorough job of it.
Private prosecutions for any crime are possible. You don’t need special powers.
Betting shops prosecuted fraudsters because the police were uninterested. Perhaps the supermarket chains could do something similar if they see shoplifting as anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Private prosecutions are disliked by The System.
I attended a community meeting where the police actually berated an org for doing private prosecutions.
Well the alternative is how it works in South Africa, where businesses do their own version of law enforcement and revenue protection.
Did some scuba diving with (among others) a South African chap who loved his job. Delivering luxury cars to buyers in Johannesburg.
Always avoided buddying with him. Adrenaline seeking is not optimal for thorough equipment checks.
In skydiving there is a discipline called swooping. In (perfectly accurate) summary, it involves pointing an extremely small parachute directly at the ground at around 1000 feet, spiraling it downwards as fast as possible until the last moment then allowing it to plane out over water at about 100mph such that you skim your foot through the surface of the water to create a plume of spray.
For fairly obvious reasons, pinpoint height accuracy on your starting point is advised.
About 5 or 6 years ago I was sitting in the plane next to an acquaintance. He tapped his (pinpoint height accurate) digital altimeter in annoyance as he realised it wasn't working. Being a generous chap (and with a duplicate audible in my helmet) I offered him my own wrist mounted alti.
"Nah, I'll be fine", he shrugged. Assuming he meant that he'd abort his planned swoop and land with us in the less experienced landing zone, I got on with my jump.
Next thing I know the whole drop zone is shut to allow the air ambulance to airlift said chap off the main runway. He'd 'eyeballed' the height of the start point for his swoop, hit the runway at 70 mph and broken his back and both femurs.
It's an equivalent level of inconsideration to people committing suicide in front of a tube train - took several hours before the drop zone reopened for jumping. He bought a lot of beer by way of recompense once he got out of hospital.
He’s lucky he didn’t die at that speed.
Having worked in the rail industry at a depot I lost most of my sympathy for one unders having seen the impact on workers affected.
When my daughter was at university my Dad said to me something like, "imagine being old enough to have a child at university," and, quick as a flash I replied, "imagine being old enough to have a grandchild at university."
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
Not only old enough to have a granddaughter at University but actually graduated and now on course to join the HMRC
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any target can be gamed to some extent, but what’s required at the basic level is an understanding of productivity, budget, and customer service, from the public sector.
Setting bonuses based on outputs delivered, public satisfaction, and saving money from the budget, would all be reasonable starting points.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any target can be gamed to some extent, but what’s required at the basic level is an understanding of productivity, budget, and customer service, from the public sector.
Setting bonuses based on outputs delivered, public satisfaction, and saving money from the budget, would all be reasonable starting points.
set them on things that can be measured and monitored and not manipulated. Sales with some clawback is easy for this. Profit based measures less so.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Going by how that panned out in the City it would lead to a massive fabricated GDP bubble followed by a crash that depresses the real economy for 25 years.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
The metric always drives behaviour. Especially when wage increase and bonus is dependent on it.
Another problem comes when different teams in different departments have conflicting metrics.
“conflicting metrics”
I worked for an alt-bank where they created a Data Security department.
Which enacted standards for software changes that were impossible to meet.
So even bug fixes - for *security* - couldn’t be done.
Because their remit was to prevent code changes that couldn’t be proven (100%) not to have security flaws.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
The sensible answer to Reform would be to develop policies to deal with the problems that are not Reform “solutions”.
Starmer has demonstrated that cosplaying Reform doesn’t work.
For example, a Labour government could change the culture from ever increasing regulation and little enforcement on employment rights and conditions.
So more inspectors (with teeth) and less bullshit in the paperwork.
This would reduce costs for the good employers and result in public court cases leading to fines and imprisonment for those who abuse - deliberately paying less than minimum wage, illegal employment etc etc.
“Enforce the Factory Acts” - that should be popular with the Labour Party and a large chunk of the country.
No performative cruelty to migrants required.
This is an area you clearly know more about than I.
I don't know what the "bullshit in the paperwork" is either - it sounds like a good idea so the question then becomes why haven't Governments of any stripe implemented what seems a sensible solution? I wonder if it's the legal aspect or a lack of manpower to carry out inspections and enforcements.
To what extent, for example, would employers create fraudulent paperwork to show they were complying with regulations and how do you then prove they aren't? In addition, some "migrants" (whatever that term actually means in this context) are often frightened, desperate people with poor English language skills. They are exploited and whether you want to call it modern slavery or not, the truth is their "life" is on many levels, controlled.
I don't know whether the law was changed after some controversy over the zealousness of the RSPCA, but I understand that they used to have the power to bring forward criminal prosecutions relating to abuse of animals.
So one innovative solution would be to give trade unions the power to initiate criminal prosecutions of employers for transgressing employment rights and law. Then the government doesn't have to worry about finding the resources to enforce this area of law, and trade unions are motivated to do a thorough job of it.
Private prosecutions for any crime are possible. You don’t need special powers.
Betting shops prosecuted fraudsters because the police were uninterested. Perhaps the supermarket chains could do something similar if they see shoplifting as anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Private prosecutions are disliked by The System.
I attended a community meeting where the police actually berated an org for doing private prosecutions.
Well the alternative is how it works in South Africa, where businesses do their own version of law enforcement and revenue protection.
Did some scuba diving with (among others) a South African chap who loved his job. Delivering luxury cars to buyers in Johannesburg.
Always avoided buddying with him. Adrenaline seeking is not optimal for thorough equipment checks.
In skydiving there is a discipline called swooping. In (perfectly accurate) summary, it involves pointing an extremely small parachute directly at the ground at around 1000 feet, spiraling it downwards as fast as possible until the last moment then allowing it to plane out over water at about 100mph such that you skim your foot through the surface of the water to create a plume of spray.
For fairly obvious reasons, pinpoint height accuracy on your starting point is advised.
About 5 or 6 years ago I was sitting in the plane next to an acquaintance. He tapped his (pinpoint height accurate) digital altimeter in annoyance as he realised it wasn't working. Being a generous chap (and with a duplicate audible in my helmet) I offered him my own wrist mounted alti.
"Nah, I'll be fine", he shrugged. Assuming he meant that he'd abort his planned swoop and land with us in the less experienced landing zone, I got on with my jump.
Next thing I know the whole drop zone is shut to allow the air ambulance to airlift said chap off the main runway. He'd 'eyeballed' the height of the start point for his swoop, hit the runway at 70 mph and broken his back and both femurs.
It's an equivalent level of inconsideration to people committing suicide in front of a tube train - took several hours before the drop zone reopened for jumping. He bought a lot of beer by way of recompense once he got out of hospital.
He’s lucky he didn’t die at that speed.
Having worked in the rail industry at a depot I lost most of my sympathy for one unders having seen the impact on workers affected.
Agreed on both counts.
On the former, many do die, especially those (cf Malmesbury) who aren't inclined to thoroughness. He was exceptionally lucky.
On the latter, I can't claim the same experience but fully agree - it must be horrific for drivers.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any objective measure is open to being gamed, while a human making a subjective judgement will spot such gaming they may make suboptimal decisions about reward for other reasons.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
Two problems. One potentially soluble, the other one not.
The soluble problem is that any incentive scheme is a battle between the assessor and the assessee. In many situations, the people being incentivised will work harder to find the loopholes, because they get a bonus for doing so. In theory, we could have cleverer people managing the incentives. In theory.
The harder problem is the time thing. Actions now have delayed consequences. And consequences now are often determined by actions decades ago. One of the reasons we are in the current mess is because of decisions which seemed like a good idea at the time, but just pushed the bill onto the future.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Going by how that panned out in the City it would lead to a massive fabricated GDP bubble followed by a crash that depresses the real economy for 25 years.
That sounds horrible. Thank goodness that didn't happen at a national level.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any objective measure is open to being gamed, while a human making a subjective judgement will spot such gaming they may make suboptimal decisions about reward for other reasons.
If Civil Servants contrive to 'game' GDP per capita rising, I'm all for it.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Going by how that panned out in the City it would lead to a massive fabricated GDP bubble followed by a crash that depresses the real economy for 25 years.
How does one fabricate a GDP per capita bubble every year, forever?
When my daughter was at university my Dad said to me something like, "imagine being old enough to have a child at university," and, quick as a flash I replied, "imagine being old enough to have a grandchild at university."
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
Not ready? But you're lovely! That's what we all think of you anyway.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Going by how that panned out in the City it would lead to a massive fabricated GDP bubble followed by a crash that depresses the real economy for 25 years.
How does one fabricate a GDP per capita bubble every year, forever?
Well exactly. You can't. The crash will duly come.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any objective measure is open to being gamed, while a human making a subjective judgement will spot such gaming they may make suboptimal decisions about reward for other reasons.
If Civil Servants contrive to 'game' GDP per capita rising, I'm all for it.
I don't know enough about how GDP is calculated to come up with examples, but I think you are being very naive if you don't think there are technical aspects of the calculation that can be gamed that wouldn't be to the general advantage of the country.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any target can be gamed to some extent, but what’s required at the basic level is an understanding of productivity, budget, and customer service, from the public sector.
Setting bonuses based on outputs delivered, public satisfaction, and saving money from the budget, would all be reasonable starting points.
They are but how to manage it so, effectively, they don’t mark their own homework.
In my last job the corporation managed the reporting of the metrics though a share point site that took the data. You could fiddle it (my old,boss refused to book in stock at month end for example) but it’s harder.
I am sympathetic to that way of thinking. I do think that GDP per capita is a metric worth keeping an eye on. And I did once suggest linking MP's pay to some combination of earnings at different percentiles.
But the unintended consequences. One has to be wary of them.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Going by how that panned out in the City it would lead to a massive fabricated GDP bubble followed by a crash that depresses the real economy for 25 years.
That sounds horrible. Thank goodness that didn't happen at a national level.
Oh.
I know! Let's not. Although tbf to Lucky he is (iiuc) proposing a rather Grinch like variation of bonus culture for the public sector whereby their pay is reduced if GDP goes down. The notorious 'one way bet' of the City is thus inverted, instead of all carrot no stick it's all stick and no carrot. This is less likely to lead to a bubble.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
The sensible answer to Reform would be to develop policies to deal with the problems that are not Reform “solutions”.
Starmer has demonstrated that cosplaying Reform doesn’t work.
For example, a Labour government could change the culture from ever increasing regulation and little enforcement on employment rights and conditions.
So more inspectors (with teeth) and less bullshit in the paperwork.
This would reduce costs for the good employers and result in public court cases leading to fines and imprisonment for those who abuse - deliberately paying less than minimum wage, illegal employment etc etc.
“Enforce the Factory Acts” - that should be popular with the Labour Party and a large chunk of the country.
No performative cruelty to migrants required.
This is an area you clearly know more about than I.
I don't know what the "bullshit in the paperwork" is either - it sounds like a good idea so the question then becomes why haven't Governments of any stripe implemented what seems a sensible solution? I wonder if it's the legal aspect or a lack of manpower to carry out inspections and enforcements.
To what extent, for example, would employers create fraudulent paperwork to show they were complying with regulations and how do you then prove they aren't? In addition, some "migrants" (whatever that term actually means in this context) are often frightened, desperate people with poor English language skills. They are exploited and whether you want to call it modern slavery or not, the truth is their "life" is on many levels, controlled.
I don't know whether the law was changed after some controversy over the zealousness of the RSPCA, but I understand that they used to have the power to bring forward criminal prosecutions relating to abuse of animals.
So one innovative solution would be to give trade unions the power to initiate criminal prosecutions of employers for transgressing employment rights and law. Then the government doesn't have to worry about finding the resources to enforce this area of law, and trade unions are motivated to do a thorough job of it.
Private prosecutions for any crime are possible. You don’t need special powers.
Betting shops prosecuted fraudsters because the police were uninterested. Perhaps the supermarket chains could do something similar if they see shoplifting as anything more than a minor inconvenience.
Private prosecutions are disliked by The System.
I attended a community meeting where the police actually berated an org for doing private prosecutions.
Well the alternative is how it works in South Africa, where businesses do their own version of law enforcement and revenue protection.
Did some scuba diving with (among others) a South African chap who loved his job. Delivering luxury cars to buyers in Johannesburg.
Always avoided buddying with him. Adrenaline seeking is not optimal for thorough equipment checks.
In skydiving there is a discipline called swooping. In (perfectly accurate) summary, it involves pointing an extremely small parachute directly at the ground at around 1000 feet, spiraling it downwards as fast as possible until the last moment then allowing it to plane out over water at about 100mph such that you skim your foot through the surface of the water to create a plume of spray.
For fairly obvious reasons, pinpoint height accuracy on your starting point is advised.
About 5 or 6 years ago I was sitting in the plane next to an acquaintance. He tapped his (pinpoint height accurate) digital altimeter in annoyance as he realised it wasn't working. Being a generous chap (and with a duplicate audible in my helmet) I offered him my own wrist mounted alti.
"Nah, I'll be fine", he shrugged. Assuming he meant that he'd abort his planned swoop and land with us in the less experienced landing zone, I got on with my jump.
Next thing I know the whole drop zone is shut to allow the air ambulance to airlift said chap off the main runway. He'd 'eyeballed' the height of the start point for his swoop, hit the runway at 70 mph and broken his back and both femurs.
It's an equivalent level of inconsideration to people committing suicide in front of a tube train - took several hours before the drop zone reopened for jumping. He bought a lot of beer by way of recompense once he got out of hospital.
He’s lucky he didn’t die at that speed.
Having worked in the rail industry at a depot I lost most of my sympathy for one unders having seen the impact on workers affected.
Agreed on both counts.
On the former, many do die, especially those (cf Malmesbury) who aren't inclined to thoroughness. He was exceptionally lucky.
On the latter, I can't claim the same experience but fully agree - it must be horrific for drivers.
And the specialist team of cleaners who have to clean up after and make sure they remove any body parts stuck on the cab.
When I worked at Bombardier in Derby they had the C class bombed carriages to refurbish. It was all covered up but I had to go on it a couple of times to check parts. Quite eerie.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
You don't seem to have noticed that trail hunting doesn't kill animals. It's not a bloodsport. And arrests for breaking the law relating to hunting with dogs since are at a miniscule level. Banning peoples' freedoms to assemble and play sport for politics is disgusting - that isn't an extreme position.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
One swallow doesn't make a summer- the vast majority of Reform is still fairly deluded about the economic and political realities.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
There is a price to pay in having a genuine separation of powers and a state which is Leviathan. Executive, legislature and judiciary can all blame each other instead of being jointly responsible if they like. They can all blame the civil service, that vast body, which we will find are subject to the realities and impositions of the three estates listed above, and are not free to break or make the law.
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
There is a massive, massive debate on the right of politics, very much including with Farage and Reform, about the current ungovernability of Britain. This has even been commented on by centrist podcasts like The News Agents and the New Statesman that I follow.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
One swallow doesn't make a summer- the vast majority of Reform is still fairly deluded about the economic and political realities.
I'm slightly puzzled why allowing Alaa Abd El-Fattah in to the country is a top priority for the government. His reported social media history seems interesting to say the least. That said the previous government gave him a British passport. Some murky history with the intelligence services?
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Civil servants have almost zero control over GDP. Making people’s pay dependent on something they can’t control is ineffective.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
Kosher slaughter should not be ignored but I'd like to know the numbers on both in the UK. Is the pre-stunning in Halal equivalent to that of standard practice? I'm guessing NP might know.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
You don't seem to have noticed that trail hunting doesn't kill animals. It's not a bloodsport. And arrests for breaking the law relating to hunting with dogs since are at a miniscule level. Banning peoples' freedoms to assemble and play sport for politics is disgusting - that isn't an extreme position.
That is not correct as far as I know. Packs that claim to be doing trail hunting * do kill animals. That is why the National Trust banned hunting on their land after evidence of such was presented, and why there have been around 50 prosecutions of hunting packs under the Hunting Act. That is despite there being little police effort with that focus - they have majored on eg hare coursing (which near here is an organised crime activity in Linolnshire).
My stance in 2004 was that exceptions should be permitted to enable a tradition to continue. I now think that it has been proved that the measure was ineffective, and that the concession has been abused. My stance now is that indulgence has run out.
At the time various bodies encouraged packs to carry on regardless in defiance of the law **, around a rhetoric of the law being "temporary". Yet around 2015-16 the Conservatives promised a free vote on the hunting ban, yet failed to follow through.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Ha
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It worked then - it changed behaviour. Clearly not to the behaviour desired, but still. Yes, you must choose your metrics carefully. Ideally they would be paid in a sort of 'Government share' whose value rose or fell with the fortunes of the country. That doesn't exist though. In its absence, I feel GDP per capita is a good measure. I could be wrong.
Any objective measure is open to being gamed, while a human making a subjective judgement will spot such gaming they may make suboptimal decisions about reward for other reasons.
If Civil Servants contrive to 'game' GDP per capita rising, I'm all for it.
Those working in the ONS would be best placed to… adjust figures to show GDP per capita rising.
Of course, the vast majority of civil servants are in low level jobs with absolutely no ability to impact on GDP. My ex’s dad worked as a court usher, thus a civil servant. He was a well-liked court usher. How on earth does linking his pay to GDP per capita help?
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
What will encourage Starmer though is that on a forced choice voters prefer him to Farage as PM by 57% to 43% on a new poll. So what may still save him is FPTP tactical voting to stop Farage and the divide on the right, as Kemi by contrast is preferred by voters over Starmer by 52% to 48% in the same Ashcroft poll
This is why Badenoch's strategic attitude to Farage and Reform is so important and I've yet to hear anyone from the Conservative (or ex-Conservative side) offer a response to whether the Conservatives under Badenoch should move closer to Reform (as a potential Government coalition partner) or remain distinct from Reform and risk becoming further marginalised?
As an ex-Conservative member (I joined because of the policies around levelling-up and the potential for a reduced NS divide; I got out when it became clear at around the time of Sunak shafting Manchester that it was marketing BS).
I think in a way Kemi has similar positioning problems to Starmer. She is letting her party be defined by following Farage/Reform, rather than be itself (whatever that would be). So we have the vision of a party led by a black woman running policies anchored by conscious xenophobia.
To fight Farage it is necessary to be fighting on your own wicket, with your own identity.
At present I do not see anything of a Conservative identity. To me the Cons still need to look at themselves in the mirror to understand what happened at the 2024 General Election.
But instead we have an endless parade of insubstantial tactical yapping. This weekend's response to the start of a gap year scheme for the armed forces is a recent example.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
Lots of labour politicians have been positing about this. Waxing lyrical in joyous terms about this man.
His history of anti semitic tweets has been more of a problem to the Jewish community than Labour MPs.
Not just antisemitism but calls for violence. For terror. It's staggering.
In a Dornford Yates novel, set in the early 1920s, a character wonders why people are bending over backwards to help a foreigner vs the locals. One who in the War deliberately helped Germany, while claiming to be a neutral.
Another character points out that such has been the style of this country, for a long time.
Where I work, most people have long running visa/work permit stuff - non EU citizens. They joke to each other that a bit of terrorism would get them a number 1 slot in the queue.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
She could learn Albanian.
And, I expect plenty of Albanians speak English well enough.
They do, a lot have, after all, lived in the UK.
Alternatively, as her partner is a criminal, we should expect her to disown him. She probably know everything he was up to and didn't shop him, she is therefore a criminal herself
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
She could learn Albanian.
And, I expect plenty of Albanians speak English well enough.
They do, a lot have, after all, lived in the UK.
Alternatively, as her partner is a criminal, we should expect her to disown him. She probably know everything he was up to and didn't shop him, she is therefore a criminal herself
That's an interesting one.
Normal expectations is that family who are involved in society are one of the key factors in rehabilitation - getting criminals out of crime after punishment and release.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
She could learn Albanian.
And, I expect plenty of Albanians speak English well enough.
They do, a lot have, after all, lived in the UK.
Alternatively, as her partner is a criminal, we should expect her to disown him. She probably know everything he was up to and didn't shop him, she is therefore a criminal herself
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
She could learn Albanian.
And, I expect plenty of Albanians speak English well enough.
They do, a lot have, after all, lived in the UK.
Alternatively, as her partner is a criminal, we should expect her to disown him. She probably know everything he was up to and didn't shop him, she is therefore a criminal herself
That's an interesting one.
Normal expectations is that family who are involved in society are one of the key factors in rehabilitation - getting criminals out of crime after punishment and release.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
PS on another topic - not sure if this will be of interest rather than exasperation for you:
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
I’m sure it’s a happy coincidence this has happened during the dead days between Xmas and the New Year when most of the media are on holiday and the press aren’t likely to hold them to account for this.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
Lots of labour politicians have been positing about this. Waxing lyrical in joyous terms about this man.
His history of anti semitic tweets has been more of a problem to the Jewish community than Labour MPs.
Not just antisemitism but calls for violence. For terror. It's staggering.
You’re right. It is utterly breathtaking.
I can only assume they are still in the mindset that this plays well with certain communities and no-one else will notice.
Well that was my first thought and a few Jewish people,I follow on social media are quite upset about it.
A small price to pay for Labour, I guess, if it gains other voters ?
It does seem odd. However a few Jewish people will always be upset about everything. One day I hope that we can sit them all down and ask them to stop fidgeting - it's all fine. Not yet though.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
PS on another topic - not sure if this will be of interest rather than exasperation for you:
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
Slackers.
Real pros would have suggested she fly her sick dad to Canada and offering him euthanasia as an alternative to a new phone contract.
When my daughter was at university my Dad said to me something like, "imagine being old enough to have a child at university," and, quick as a flash I replied, "imagine being old enough to have a grandchild at university."
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
I’m sure it’s a happy coincidence this has happened during the dead days between Xmas and the New Year when most of the media are on holiday and the press aren’t likely to hold them to account for this.
Then why put all these quotes about it being a "top priority" on the record?
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
PS on another topic - not sure if this will be of interest rather than exasperation for you:
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
Slackers.
Real pros would have suggested she fly her sick dad to Canada and offering him euthanasia as an alternative to a new phone contract.
If those were the choices euthanasia would have its attractions.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
Have you read Rory Stewart’s autobiography?
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
Doesn't it really require a knowledge of behaviourism - ie find out what has motivated/motivates humans to make this mess, work out what will motivate them to fix it, and produce the desired political outcomes, and put those systems in place.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Can I remind you the architect of the "Chagos giveaway" was YOUR preferred Prime Minister from the last decade?
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
The relationship between the Army and the HAC (for example) is interesting.
Since it includes a number of high end IT workers from the City.
Some hilarious accounts of almost desperate “stay in your lane” going on, when they are deployed.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
I may be wrong - and of course the Second World War is still technically in progress - but I think the shooting ended in 1945, while conscription continued until 1960.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
From what I can gather, this man was not a British National until about five years ago, when he applied while in an Egyptian jail. This is the kind of Human Rights Lawyer nonsense that contributes to Sir Keir's unpopularity. There is talk that El-Fattah has never even been to the UK, although that is surely too far fetched. He had been calling for all kinds of terrible stuff to happen to Zionists etc before he was jailed though, why is Sir Keir (along with Yvette Cooper, David Lammy, generic Labour puppet MPs) so eager to tell everyone how happy he is about this? Government's "top priority?"
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
Lots of labour politicians have been positing about this. Waxing lyrical in joyous terms about this man.
His history of anti semitic tweets has been more of a problem to the Jewish community than Labour MPs.
Not just antisemitism but calls for violence. For terror. It's staggering.
You’re right. It is utterly breathtaking.
I can only assume they are still in the mindset that this plays well with certain communities and no-one else will notice.
Well that was my first thought and a few Jewish people,I follow on social media are quite upset about it.
A small price to pay for Labour, I guess, if it gains other voters ?
It does seem odd. However a few Jewish people will always be upset about everything. One day I hope that we can sit them all down and ask them to stop fidgeting - it's all fine. Not yet though.
It is probably unreasonable for them to be upset at the U.K. welcoming with open arms, with the govt and cabinet ministers posting triumphantly about it, a raging anti semite who has avidly supported violence, including killing, against opponents in past posts as per the screenshot tweets in the thread under the Yvetter Cooper tweet. Bondi was only a fortnight ago. They need to suck it up.
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
Didn't it try to get out of a libel case by claiming it wasn't a serious newspaper so couldn't be taken seriously? I forget the details, though.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
This is Ambrose Evans-Pritchard erasure.
Good point. Although I think it fair to say Ambrose Evans-Pritchard in not in the same league of unhinged narrative as the two "Alls".
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
The relationship between the Army and the HAC (for example) is interesting.
Since it includes a number of high end IT workers from the City.
Some hilarious accounts of almost desperate “stay in your lane” going on, when they are deployed.
Nations of all sorts, but democracies in particular, seem very poor at being able to build a strong military force of any kind whilst not in conflict.
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
Perhaps if we voted according to who might run an effective Government or Ministry, rather than who we might want to invite to a family barbeque, the country might be in a slightly better state.
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
He’s not wrong here.
No, he's not. We have a moron for a PM doing moronic things and he is highlighting that behaviour. That's his job, right enough.
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
He’s not wrong here.
He's generally right. Indeed, very often far right.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
I may be wrong - and of course the Second World War is still technically in progress - but I think the shooting ended in 1945, while conscription continued until 1960.
Yes - but that was linked to WW2 and the unwinding of Empire.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
The relationship between the Army and the HAC (for example) is interesting.
Since it includes a number of high end IT workers from the City.
Some hilarious accounts of almost desperate “stay in your lane” going on, when they are deployed.
My late grandfather fought with the HAC in North Africa and at Monte Cassino
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
He’s not wrong here.
He's generally right. Indeed, very often far right.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
PS on another topic - not sure if this will be of interest rather than exasperation for you:
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
What bothers me is not that they're lying swindling Tristrams, but that they have the nerve to claim they care about 'good customer service.'
If they just said openly, 'Like whores, we fuck you for your money and if you don't like it, get fucked,' I'd oddly have more respect for them.
I can't stand Jenrick. He's a racist, bigoted kill joy, sanctimonious and cruel. I would not vote for a Jenrick led Tory party. But he knows his trade and he is diligent with it.
Lawyers!
If I were a guilty as hell axe wielding serial killer, I'd take my chances with Jenrick rather than Starmer. I reckon Jenrick could use smoke, mirrors and Machiavellian guile to get me that not-guilty verdict.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy? 2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
I think you might be mistaking lethargy for strategy.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
PS on another topic - not sure if this will be of interest rather than exasperation for you:
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
What bothers me is not that they're lying swindling Tristrams, but that they have the nerve to claim they care about 'good customer service.'
If they just said openly, 'Like whores, we fuck you for your money and if you don't like it, get fucked,' I'd oddly have more respect for them.
Any record of him being on the case when his government gave this bloke citizenship?
‘ As I understand it, the Johnson government had no discretion about granting him citizenship. He was entitled as of right by descent because his mother happened to have been born here’
Any record of him being on the case when his government gave this bloke citizenship?
‘ As I understand it, the Johnson government had no discretion about granting him citizenship. He was entitled as of right by descent because his mother happened to have been born here’
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
This sort of bollocks decision by the tribunal plays into the hands of those who believe the Human rights act needs reviewing.
The decision isn't just bollocks its effing ludicrous.
I can't read the article but it seems the premise is that unless conditions are essentially perfect in all regards, with no grounds for appeal, you don't get deported.
The system working as intended then.
Politicians spoute shite about stopping this. They could. They never do.
If I was PM, I'd read Private Eye every fortnight, drag the appropriate ministers and civil servants in, and tell them to f***ing sort it out
I could be wrong, but I doubt you'd see this story troubling the pages of Private Eye.
Is that because Private Eye is a lot better at fact-checking than the Telegraph?
No, it's because Private Eye is centrist-approved 'satire' along with HIGNFY.
Whilst the Telegraph is a satirical broadsheet comic with top drawer comedic parody writing from Allister Heath and Allison Pearson on an almost daily basis.
The "gap year" recruitment idea for the armed forces is interesting - my gap year wasn't spent in far flung destinations but working for Mecca Bookmakers so glamourous, it wasn't. I suspect it would look good on the CV and better than saying I went to Thailand or Australia or even Mecca Bookmakers in Panton Street.
They have a similar program in Australia and it works well. However, it's very expensive to do it properly as these people need a lot of supervision and they can only be used in a very limited number of roles. The UK MoD will probably just use them as cheap labour to do photocopying or something.
I’ve always been a fan of the idea, not so much with what they can do on a day to day basis (maybe be used for guard, sentry duty to free up other soldiers?) but more on the basis of building up a large number over time of people who have already learned the basics of shooting and infantry tactics so if there is a situation in the future where the country had to mobilise a lot of people will need refreshers rather than training from scratch which is surely a good thing?
You aren’t going to have millions of Marines in cold storage but the military would have lists of people with various levels of training and, hopefully, identified skill sets where they can be fast-tracked in an emergency.
Also it might get people to try it as only a short period who then find that it’s the life for them and they commit which would help the recruitment situation.
At the time earlier this year when our media were obsessing about "BUT CONSCRIPTION !!!", the best response I heard was from a military commentator, retired, along the lines of:
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
I may be wrong - and of course the Second World War is still technically in progress - but I think the shooting ended in 1945, while conscription continued until 1960.
Yes - but that was linked to WW2 and the unwinding of Empire.
Korea, too.
Interesting that the chap didn't want to give any credit to (a) the mediaeval mercenaries (White Company etc) and (b) the New Model Army for their professionalism. Or to mention the conscription that took place at other times, e.g. the Napoleonic Wars (albeit for home defence).
He also carefully omits the Raff and the RN, the latter rather famous for its greater professionalism and, at times, much more savage conscription system than the Army. I mean, the Admiralty actually insisted on examining its trainee officers.
But that doesn't alter the basic point that the Army hated conscription - got in the way of the Regimental sports etc., having to train a new lot every year.
Edit: Unless of course they could conscript the equivalent of Mr Beckham.
Comments
Or wondered why Starmer complains things can’t get done?
Overcoming systemic culture is hard. It requires knowledge, time and a certain kind of polite savagery.
For a start, there can and should be a permanent system in place that makes civil service and political remuneration dependent on individual and departmental performance, but also on positive markers in the economy.
What if every civil servant was going to get less money in their pay packet and pension pot if GDP per capita went down? How would that affect the efficiency of the immigration system and levels of deportations? How would it affect things like the Chagos giveaway?
Course now she's 24, bought her own house and, unprompted, discussed the possibility of having a child of her own in the future. So she's given me fair warning to get used to the idea of being a Grandad, which, for the record, I am not ready for.
I worked in a bank where they tried to change the traders behaviour via the bonus.
So they capped the bonus component for profit and added in a component for growing market share.
The traders took mad risks to maximise profit, then used the “excess” profit to sell derivatives at a loss. So they finished the year with maximum profit bonus and increased bank market share.
Be careful what metrics you use.
It's when you're a Great-Grandad that you start to think ........
There is a certain fascination about the question of what a Reform government will make of all this, as they realise that instead of chuntering about Magna Carta they find they are subject to the effects of 900 years of law and regulation making, governance and judicial decision, as well as being subject to the public's opinion about how they need it all sorted within a fortnight.
For fairly obvious reasons, pinpoint height accuracy on your starting point is advised.
About 5 or 6 years ago I was sitting in the plane next to an acquaintance. He tapped his (pinpoint height accurate) digital
altimeter in annoyance as he realised it wasn't working. Being a generous chap (and with a duplicate audible in my helmet) I offered him my own wrist mounted alti.
"Nah, I'll be fine", he shrugged. Assuming he meant that he'd abort his planned swoop and land with us in the less experienced landing zone, I got on with my jump.
Next thing I know the whole drop zone is shut to allow the air ambulance to airlift said chap off the main runway. He'd 'eyeballed' the height of the start point for his swoop, hit the runway at 70 mph and broken his back and both femurs.
It's an equivalent level of inconsideration to people committing suicide in front of a tube train - took several hours before the drop zone reopened for jumping. He bought a lot of beer by way of recompense once he got out of hospital.
Another problem comes when different teams in different departments have conflicting metrics.
Having worked in the rail industry at a depot I lost most of my sympathy for one unders having seen the impact on workers affected.
Setting bonuses based on outputs delivered, public satisfaction, and saving money from the budget, would all be reasonable starting points.
I worked for an alt-bank where they created a Data Security department.
Which enacted standards for software changes that were impossible to meet.
So even bug fixes - for *security* - couldn’t be done.
Because their remit was to prevent code changes that couldn’t be proven (100%) not to have security flaws.
On the former, many do die, especially those (cf Malmesbury) who aren't inclined to thoroughness. He was exceptionally lucky.
On the latter, I can't claim the same experience but fully agree - it must be horrific for drivers.
You may not agree with the solutions being discussed, but it's very dated to believe that Reform are wandering into power thinking they will just wave a magic wand and by 'being Reform' everything will start jumping to attention and everyone will behave patriotically. That pathetic Starmerite delusion doesn't exist on today's right.
The soluble problem is that any incentive scheme is a battle between the assessor and the assessee. In many situations, the people being incentivised will work harder to find the loopholes, because they get a bonus for doing so. In theory, we could have cleverer people managing the incentives. In theory.
The harder problem is the time thing. Actions now have delayed consequences. And consequences now are often determined by actions decades ago. One of the reasons we are in the current mess is because of decisions which seemed like a good idea at the time, but just pushed the bill onto the future.
Oh.
In my last job the corporation managed the reporting of the metrics though a share point site that took the data. You could fiddle it (my old,boss refused to book in stock at month end for example) but it’s harder.
But the unintended consequences. One has to be wary of them.
So, minor questions of the year.
1 - Does Mr Starmer have a political strategy?
2 - What is it?
(The trail hunting thing is interesting. Is he trying to bait Reacto-Kemi into taking ever more extreme, idiosyncratic positions?)
The replies in the Telegraph comments are largely about "What about the cruelty of Halal slaughter?" * and "Towny ! Towny ! Towny !".
* They do not seem to have noticed that nearly 90% of Halal slaughter uses pre-stunning, that there are rulings that pre-stunning is Sharia-complaint, and that Kosher slaughter has larger problems since the animal is ex-licitly required to be fully conscious.
Were I Mr Starmer, I would be talking to Muslim organisations to explore the possibilities.
When I worked at Bombardier in Derby they had the C class bombed carriages to refurbish. It was all covered up but I had to go on it a couple of times to check parts. Quite eerie.
Edit - re kosher, criticising that that would lead certain Not At All Antisemitic persons to claim, yet again, that it's Starmer and not them that's antisemitic.
My stance in 2004 was that exceptions should be permitted to enable a tradition to continue. I now think that it has been proved that the measure was ineffective, and that the concession has been abused. My stance now is that indulgence has run out.
At the time various bodies encouraged packs to carry on regardless in defiance of the law **, around a rhetoric of the law being "temporary". Yet around 2015-16 the Conservatives promised a free vote on the hunting ban, yet failed to follow through.
Police Parliamentary briefing from 2019 ahead of a debate:
https://www.nwcu.police.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/03/House-of-Commons-Debate-Pack-March-2019.pdf
The National Trust position now is that trail hunting is not allowed, after they received evidence of animals being killed on trail hunts. They permit drag hunting.
https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/who-we-are/about-us/our-position-on-trail-hunting
* There's an edge case for "Drag Hunting" packs which do not use fox-based scent trails.
** https://www.horseandhound.co.uk/hunting/37000-pledge-to-flout-hunting-ban-41754
I’m delighted that Alaa Abd El-Fattah is back in the UK and has been reunited with his loved ones, who must be feeling profound relief.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon.
https://x.com/Keir_Starmer/status/2004603692197036322?s=20
Lots of labour politicians have been positing about this. Waxing lyrical in joyous terms about this man.
His history of anti semitic tweets has been more of a problem to the Jewish community than Labour MPs.
Were they not aware of the guy's social media history? I'm not an advocate for offence archaeology but has the man recanted on any of his views?
Of course, the vast majority of civil servants are in low level jobs with absolutely no ability to impact on GDP. My ex’s dad worked as a court usher, thus a civil servant. He was a well-liked court usher. How on earth does linking his pay to GDP per capita help?
I agree generally on offence archeology, as you call it, but our media will use it to nail some and ignore it in others.
Look at the pasting for Farage over comments he made when he was a child, this Jew hater was an adult when he made his.
The comments in this thread are pretty damning.
https://x.com/yvettecoopermp/status/2004625697990746201?s=61
I think in a way Kemi has similar positioning problems to Starmer. She is letting her party be defined by following Farage/Reform, rather than be itself (whatever that would be). So we have the vision of a party led by a black woman running policies anchored by conscious xenophobia.
To fight Farage it is necessary to be fighting on your own wicket, with your own identity.
At present I do not see anything of a Conservative identity. To me the Cons still need to look at themselves in the mirror to understand what happened at the 2024 General Election.
But instead we have an endless parade of insubstantial tactical yapping. This weekend's response to the start of a gap year scheme for the armed forces is a recent example.
Another character points out that such has been the style of this country, for a long time.
Where I work, most people have long running visa/work permit stuff - non EU citizens. They joke to each other that a bit of terrorism would get them a number 1 slot in the queue.
Normal expectations is that family who are involved in society are one of the key factors in rehabilitation - getting criminals out of crime after punishment and release.
There are lots of nuanceS.
https://x.com/RobertJenrick/status/2004909789042942025
The Prime Minister very publicly endorsed and welcomed to the UK a man with disgusting, extremist views.
Does he really support him? Or was he just ignorant?
My letter to @Keir_Starmer
A small price to pay for Labour, I guess, if it gains other voters ?
https://www.theguardian.com/money/2025/dec/27/anna-tims-dishonours-list-customer-service-awards-2025
I must admit there are some real prizes, eg.
'Dead customers are so much easier to deal with than live ones. Perhaps that is why Three (slogan: “Live your best phone life”) suggested CF “kill off” her sick father when she wanted to change the ownership of her mobile phone contract. [...] Helpfully, it suggested it mark her father down as deceased so it could oblige her request to make her the primary account holder for her own mobile phone. That could, Three warned, affect his credit rating, but it promised to tell credit agencies that he was still alive after the deed was done.'
"The British Army has been professional since 1660 (about right but slightly debatable), and have had conscription twice - in two World Wars. Conscription is not effective, with low skilled people in for short periods, and we would need many more professionals just to run it. The army would hate it, and it won't happen. "
There's a bit of "understanding ourselves by creating a foundational justifying myth" there (Gotcha ! trickery and the King's Shilling?), but it says a lot. It's a tougher call for the Navy, with conscription via Press Gangs. We won't get formal conscription until the professional army has been decimated.
So imo we will have alternatives which build reserves, and less deeply skilled staff suitable for less intense duties (Finnish model?), and to build relationships with the public. That will be by building out from traditional models, and has been underway for some time with Cadets. To me this new initiative is another step in that direction.
Real pros would have suggested she fly her sick dad to Canada and offering him euthanasia as an alternative to a new phone contract.
William Gaddis invented our blank and empty world
Sam Kriss"
https://unherd.com/2025/12/how-america-went-money-mad/
Since it includes a number of high end IT workers from the City.
Some hilarious accounts of almost desperate “stay in your lane” going on, when they are deployed.
I’m sure he’s a different man now.
This does show why Jenners would be a better LotO than Gogglebox. He's all over this shit instantly.
The police the chap he is attacking was opposing were from one of the Eqyptian dictatorships.
There are some fairly dramatic statements from 2010 or so being claimed, but .... Hmmm.
I want to pay tribute to Alaa’s family, and to all those that have worked and campaigned for this moment.
Alaa's case has been a top priority for my government since we came to office. I’m grateful to President Sisi for his decision to grant the pardon’
If they just said openly, 'Like whores, we fuck you for your money and if you don't like it, get fucked,' I'd oddly have more respect for them.
If I were a guilty as hell axe wielding serial killer, I'd take my chances with Jenrick rather than Starmer. I reckon Jenrick could use smoke, mirrors and Machiavellian guile to get me that not-guilty verdict.
‘ As I understand it, the Johnson government had no discretion about granting him citizenship. He was entitled as of right by descent because his mother happened to have been born here’
https://x.com/barbararich_law/status/2004884081683927227?s=61
😂😂😂😂
Interesting that the chap didn't want to give any credit to (a) the mediaeval mercenaries (White Company etc) and (b) the New Model Army for their professionalism. Or to mention the conscription that took place at other times, e.g. the Napoleonic Wars (albeit for home defence).
He also carefully omits the Raff and the RN, the latter rather famous for its greater professionalism and, at times, much more savage conscription system than the Army. I mean, the Admiralty actually insisted on examining its trainee officers.
But that doesn't alter the basic point that the Army hated conscription - got in the way of the Regimental sports etc., having to train a new lot every year.
Edit: Unless of course they could conscript the equivalent of Mr Beckham.