“As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a "categorical pledge" were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.”
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment
Removing someone from a waiting list who doesn't need treatment isn't massaging the figures it's a sensible thing to do to produce accurate figures and happened under the last govt too.
According to the article, Rishi Sunak refused to do so
However, one figure in the last government said Rishi Sunak had vetoed a plan by the NHS to conduct a similar exercise when he was prime minister because it involved paying the organisation for “doing something it should be doing anyway”.
They added that “artificially” reducing the waiting list also gave a misleading impression of the NHS’s performance.
I'm sure Mandelson would have approved of such "cheating" 😏
In response to the header, where Frank Herbert was surely correct was in saying that power does not corrupt; rather it attracts pathological personalities, who are already corrupt.
Where he was dead wrong, was with his "beware heroes" message. Evil is not heroic or glamorous. It is seedy and banal.
I think CS Lewis' vision of evil is far more relevant to our times:
I live in the Managerial Age, in a world of "Admin." The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" that Dickens loved to paint. It is not done even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered (moved, seconded, carried, and minuted) in clean, carpeted, warmed, and well-lighted offices, by quiet men with white collars and cut fingernails and smooth-shaven cheeks who do not need to raise their voice. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the offices of a thoroughly nasty business concern.
Screwtape Letters reference? Not read it, but it's been on my radar for an alarmingly long time.
Well worth a read, though a bit dated now. As is Lewis's little known masterpiece, a lecture to students, 'The Inner Ring' which is bang up to date, and printed in 'Screwtape Proposes a Toast'. Text (I think complete) here:
When I wrote that there was much to "enjoy" I meant it in a blackly humorous way. I was doing leak investigations, some of them involving government deals, and it was well known that if government was involved it would be the likeliest source of the leaks. We assumed Spads or similar not Senior Ministers. Fury would be the right response but I try to limit this these days.
I'm not on here much because I need more joy and there has been little of it around lately. I am off to Dublin today for a funeral of a much loved cousin. It is the 4th death of a loved one in little over a month. My wish for the Angel of Death to bugger off and leave the Cyclefree family alone has been ignored. At least the 800 or so spring bulbs I planted last autumn, each of them individually by hand on a newly created bed, are coming up and I am around to see them. So there is that.
I take @IanB2's point. Will this matter lead to a general unraveling or not? In some ways there ought to be such an unraveling because things really ought not to go on as they are. But the trouble with such unraveling is that this tends to make things very much worse - not better. Starmer's squandering of the opportunity he had and still has is unforgivable.
And - in comparison with the US, for example - it is to the significant credit of the UK's institutional culture that both a member of our Royal Family and a senior politician with solid connections into the current government have both been exposed, shamed, and banished. In most countries, people of such power, wealth and influence would be as good as untouchable.
And I also doubt that this exposure could have happened 20 or 30 years ago either. If there is a ray of hope to be found, it is that modern technology, for all its faults, is making it harder for those in power to keep their sordid secrets. While Cyclefree rightly castigates the sytem that allows these people to get away with their misdeeds, I think the direction of progress remains positive, even if far too slow.
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Simplistic questions that arise for me over Mendelson etc.
With Windrush I wonder: Where were the MPs, where were the human rights lawyers.
With Mandelson I wonder: Where were MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch etc? Obvs they hide, rightly, behind secrecy and No Comment, but either they have all been a bit dim in their espionage or SKS etc have ignored a lot of advice.
Especially if Epstein was a Mossad agent (alleged)
As Epstein is dead and can't sue, no need for the "allegedly". Unless you are worried Mossad might be being libelled?
And of course if Mossad did take offence they wouldn't bother with seeking justice through the courts.
Ms C suggested the Russians were more likely suspects. This seems plausible to me, and is more easily said openly since their operatives are evidently a good deal less efficient than their Israeli counterparts.
Thanks @Cyclefree again and what a depressing header and thread
The story goes deeper into the sewer with unimaginable behaviour and depravity
I agree with Ed Davey that this must be investigated by a Public Enquiry
You and Ed Davey want an inquiry that will drag on for years, not report till almost everyone is dead, and those who aren't have forgotten the question? You can see why Ed Davey might have wanted that for the Post Office scandal where he was peripherally involved as a minister who forgot to ask any questions, but surely you, a distinguished PBer, are not tied up with Epstein! The Covid inquiry rumbles on too. Still, even that is an improvement over what used to happen, as when the Franks inquiry whitewashed the Falklands, or the inquiry into why the Dickens dossier on paedophiles in high places (surely not!) was lost inside the Home Office, set up by Theresa May, concluded it could find no evidence because it had all been lost inside the Home Office.
So no.
Mandelson can be impeached. It hasn't been used since 1806 (in a similar case (relating to a previous period as Treasurer of the Navy, Dundas wasn't a minister at the time of the prosecution) but there is no reason why it can't.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
Go to London and you’ll either be mugged or disappointed
Of course there are nice areas left for Londoners to live in. Altrincham, Didsbury, Bramhall; Gosforth, Jesmond; Whirlow, Ecclesall; Edgbaston, Bournville...
Simplistic questions that arise for me over Mendelson etc.
With Windrush I wonder: Where were the MPs, where were the human rights lawyers.
With Mandelson I wonder: Where were MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch etc? Obvs they hide, rightly, behind secrecy and No Comment, but either they have all been a bit dim in their espionage or SKS etc have ignored a lot of advice.
Especially if Epstein was a Mossad agent (alleged)
As Epstein is dead and can't sue, no need for the "allegedly". Unless you are worried Mossad might be being libelled?
He was almost certainly working as an agent for a state actor, and possibly more than one state at that.
Russia is far more likely than Mossad. The risk reward ration was dreadful for Mossad but very good for Russia. See Trump.
Could be both. Robert Maxwell did. And what are the chances that the daugther of Maxwell ends up with this super intel spounge. Also, Russia and Israel have been close allies in the recent past, it was hoped initially they would the ones to negiotate with Putin to stop his actions in Ukraine.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
Simplistic questions that arise for me over Mendelson etc.
With Windrush I wonder: Where were the MPs, where were the human rights lawyers.
With Mandelson I wonder: Where were MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch etc? Obvs they hide, rightly, behind secrecy and No Comment, but either they have all been a bit dim in their espionage or SKS etc have ignored a lot of advice.
My assumption on this is that a big fat file landed on Starmer's desk, advising against appointment but not quite in absolute terms so the final decision was his, and he ignored it.
If you close your eyes you can imagine Sir Humphrey explaining to Starmer that such an appointment would be a courageous decision and Starmer being too thick to appreciate what he was being told. Oh for the days when Jim Hacker was Prime Minister !
Genuine LOL at that.
Of course the decision is always for the minister to make, and one supposes there are differing degrees of forcefulness that the senior CS might make in advising against the appointment.
That file will be back on Starmer’s desk this morning, and you can bet he’s reading every single word of it trying to find a vetting failure to save his own arse.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
London being shit is just an American clickbait talking point.
Thanks @Cyclefree again and what a depressing header and thread
The story goes deeper into the sewer with unimaginable behaviour and depravity
I agree with Ed Davey that this must be investigated by a Public Enquiry
You and Ed Davey want an inquiry that will drag on for years, not report till almost everyone is dead, and those who aren't have forgotten the question? You can see why Ed Davey might have wanted that for the Post Office scandal where he was peripherally involved as a minister who forgot to ask any questions, but surely you, a distinguished PBer, are not tied up with Epstein! The Covid inquiry rumbles on too. Still, even that is an improvement over what used to happen, as when the Franks inquiry whitewashed the Falklands, or the inquiry into why the Dickens dossier on paedophiles in high places (surely not!) was lost inside the Home Office, set up by Theresa May, concluded it could find no evidence because it had all been lost inside the Home Office.
So no.
I agree; Public Inquiries are, surely, for the how and why of where we are; this case seems to be begging for a competent investigator, i.e. the Police (don't snigger at the back) to be involved.
However, in your comment you missed what is probably the most disgracefully delayed investigation of all; the Infected Blood Inquiry. I know a lady in her 90's who was one of those infected and to my knowledge she doesn't yet know the results of the Inquiry as they affect her.
Simplistic questions that arise for me over Mendelson etc.
With Windrush I wonder: Where were the MPs, where were the human rights lawyers.
With Mandelson I wonder: Where were MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch etc? Obvs they hide, rightly, behind secrecy and No Comment, but either they have all been a bit dim in their espionage or SKS etc have ignored a lot of advice.
My assumption on this is that a big fat file landed on Starmer's desk, advising against appointment but not quite in absolute terms so the final decision was his, and he ignored it.
If you close your eyes you can imagine Sir Humphrey explaining to Starmer that such an appointment would be a courageous decision and Starmer being too thick to appreciate what he was being told. Oh for the days when Jim Hacker was Prime Minister !
Genuine LOL at that.
Of course the decision is always for the minister to make, and one supposes there are differing degrees of forcefulness that the senior CS might make in advising against the appointment.
That file will be back on Starmer’s desk this morning, and you can bet he’s reading every single word of it trying to find a vetting failure to save his own arse.
Arse-saving goes both ways, though. The vetting report could be anodyne mush save for one subtly damming sentence tucked away in the middle of a paragraph on page nineteen of ninety for just this eventuality.
Simplistic questions that arise for me over Mendelson etc.
With Windrush I wonder: Where were the MPs, where were the human rights lawyers.
With Mandelson I wonder: Where were MI5, MI6, GCHQ, Special Branch etc? Obvs they hide, rightly, behind secrecy and No Comment, but either they have all been a bit dim in their espionage or SKS etc have ignored a lot of advice.
Especially if Epstein was a Mossad agent (alleged)
As Epstein is dead and can't sue, no need for the "allegedly". Unless you are worried Mossad might be being libelled?
He was almost certainly working as an agent for a state actor, and possibly more than one state at that.
Russia is far more likely than Mossad. The risk reward ration was dreadful for Mossad but very good for Russia. See Trump.
Could be both. Robert Maxwell did. And what are the chances that the daugther of Maxwell ends up with this super intel spounge. Also, Russia and Israel have been close allies in the recent past, it was hoped initially they would the ones to negiotate with Putin to stop his actions in Ukraine.
Indeed there are quite a few Russian Jews that have emigrated to Israel.
Let’s just hope that someone can talk some sense in to Putin soon. There is the third round of the Abu Dhabi talks later this week, with US and UAE mediating.
The sticking point is said to be the obvious one, of territory. Ukraine wants a return to the 1991 border and Russia wants the whole Donbas region as well as Crimea.
The compromise of a DMZ in currently occupied Ukrainian territory, to allow for more talks, was accepted by Ukraine and rejected by Russia last week.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
Not the children of the top 5% - just the top 5% academically. Doing academia for academia's sake, for free. If anyone else wants to join them and pay for it, fine.
But also, for the rest, there should be lots and lots of education available for the next tranche which is rather more targeted. It doesn't have to be academic, but it does have to be useful. And also free, or free-ish.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
My mother was a 'career woman', back in the 40's and 50's; she was a pharmacist who ran her own pharmacy (or chemist shop!) which she'd opened in the early 1930's, several years before she met and subsequently married my teacher father. She worked full-, or nearly - time all the time I was at school and one of my early memories...... I was about 9 I think, is of me having a major test in class, and coming top, by (it didn't last) quite a bit. I ran home hoping, hoping, that my mother would be home for me to tell her; I didn't want the first person in the family to know to be my mother's sister, who kept house for us.
When I wrote that there was much to "enjoy" I meant it in a blackly humorous way. I was doing leak investigations, some of them involving government deals, and it was well known that if government was involved it would be the likeliest source of the leaks. We assumed Spads or similar not Senior Ministers. Fury would be the right response but I try to limit this these days.
I'm not on here much because I need more joy and there has been little of it around lately. I am off to Dublin today for a funeral of a much loved cousin. It is the 4th death of a loved one in little over a month. My wish for the Angel of Death to bugger off and leave the Cyclefree family alone has been ignored. At least the 800 or so spring bulbs I planted last autumn, each of them individually by hand on a newly created bed, are coming up and I am around to see them. So there is that.
I take @IanB2's point. Will this matter lead to a general unraveling or not? In some ways there ought to be such an unraveling because things really ought not to go on as they are. But the trouble with such unraveling is that this tends to make things very much worse - not better. Starmer's squandering of the opportunity he had and still has is unforgivable.
And - in comparison with the US, for example - it is to the significant credit of the UK's institutional culture that both a member of our Royal Family and a senior politician with solid connections into the current government have both been exposed, shamed, and banished. In most countries, people of such power, wealth and influence would be as good as untouchable.
And I also doubt that this exposure could have happened 20 or 30 years ago either. If there is a ray of hope to be found, it is that modern technology, for all its faults, is making it harder for those in power to keep their sordid secrets. While Cyclefree rightly castigates the sytem that allows these people to get away with their misdeeds, I think the direction of progress remains positive, even if far too slow.
True - although the sequence of events that led to this particular powerful person's entire email and photo archive being made public for anyone to read was and is rather unlikely
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
When I wrote that there was much to "enjoy" I meant it in a blackly humorous way. I was doing leak investigations, some of them involving government deals, and it was well known that if government was involved it would be the likeliest source of the leaks. We assumed Spads or similar not Senior Ministers. Fury would be the right response but I try to limit this these days.
I'm not on here much because I need more joy and there has been little of it around lately. I am off to Dublin today for a funeral of a much loved cousin. It is the 4th death of a loved one in little over a month. My wish for the Angel of Death to bugger off and leave the Cyclefree family alone has been ignored. At least the 800 or so spring bulbs I planted last autumn, each of them individually by hand on a newly created bed, are coming up and I am around to see them. So there is that.
I take @IanB2's point. Will this matter lead to a general unraveling or not? In some ways there ought to be such an unraveling because things really ought not to go on as they are. But the trouble with such unraveling is that this tends to make things very much worse - not better. Starmer's squandering of the opportunity he had and still has is unforgivable.
And - in comparison with the US, for example - it is to the significant credit of the UK's institutional culture that both a member of our Royal Family and a senior politician with solid connections into the current government have both been exposed, shamed, and banished. In most countries, people of such power, wealth and influence would be as good as untouchable.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
Not the children of the top 5% - just the top 5% academically. Doing academia for academia's sake, for free. If anyone else wants to join them and pay for it, fine.
But also, for the rest, there should be lots and lots of education available for the next tranche which is rather more targeted. It doesn't have to be academic, but it does have to be useful. And also free, or free-ish.
When I was a lad, as the saying goes, solicitors, accountants, pharmacists and many other professional people didn't have to have degrees; they qualified by means of professional examinations which in many cases could be passes as a result of part-time study. In the 30's and 50's pharmacy was a bit unusual in that one did have a full-time course.
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe? Mandy needs his collar felt. And I say that as a sort-of admirer. I like politicians who are devious smart and ruthless. They get things done. I suspect Mandelson might have made a pretty good prime minster (and then been less seduced by weirdo billionaires)
Nonetheless justice must be seen to be done. Same goes for Andrew if more evidence emerges. And about 3000 important men in America
Thanks @Cyclefree again and what a depressing header and thread
The story goes deeper into the sewer with unimaginable behaviour and depravity
I agree with Ed Davey that this must be investigated by a Public Enquiry
You and Ed Davey want an inquiry that will drag on for years, not report till almost everyone is dead, and those who aren't have forgotten the question? You can see why Ed Davey might have wanted that for the Post Office scandal where he was peripherally involved as a minister who forgot to ask any questions, but surely you, a distinguished PBer, are not tied up with Epstein! The Covid inquiry rumbles on too. Still, even that is an improvement over what used to happen, as when the Franks inquiry whitewashed the Falklands, or the inquiry into why the Dickens dossier on paedophiles in high places (surely not!) was lost inside the Home Office, set up by Theresa May, concluded it could find no evidence because it had all been lost inside the Home Office.
So no.
Mandelson can be impeached. It hasn't been used since 1806 (in a similar case (relating to a previous period as Treasurer of the Navy, Dundas wasn't a minister at the time of the prosecution) but there is no reason why it can't.
One thing the British State has been very good at in recent years is creating all sorts of new labyrinthine solutions to problems that could be fixed perfectly well by dusting off historical precedents and mechanisms and statutes that have been around for centuries.
I assume that the reason it doesn’t is because it fears such matters can now be challenged in the courts, which is another reason to rebalance their role in our democracy.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
To be honest the writer is probably just letting his AGI, conscious, LLM write this drivel for him.
When I wrote that there was much to "enjoy" I meant it in a blackly humorous way. I was doing leak investigations, some of them involving government deals, and it was well known that if government was involved it would be the likeliest source of the leaks. We assumed Spads or similar not Senior Ministers. Fury would be the right response but I try to limit this these days.
I'm not on here much because I need more joy and there has been little of it around lately. I am off to Dublin today for a funeral of a much loved cousin. It is the 4th death of a loved one in little over a month. My wish for the Angel of Death to bugger off and leave the Cyclefree family alone has been ignored. At least the 800 or so spring bulbs I planted last autumn, each of them individually by hand on a newly created bed, are coming up and I am around to see them. So there is that.
I take @IanB2's point. Will this matter lead to a general unraveling or not? In some ways there ought to be such an unraveling because things really ought not to go on as they are. But the trouble with such unraveling is that this tends to make things very much worse - not better. Starmer's squandering of the opportunity he had and still has is unforgivable.
And - in comparison with the US, for example - it is to the significant credit of the UK's institutional culture that both a member of our Royal Family and a senior politician with solid connections into the current government have both been exposed, shamed, and banished. In most countries, people of such power, wealth and influence would be as good as untouchable.
And I also doubt that this exposure could have happened 20 or 30 years ago either. If there is a ray of hope to be found, it is that modern technology, for all its faults, is making it harder for those in power to keep their sordid secrets. While Cyclefree rightly castigates the sytem that allows these people to get away with their misdeeds, I think the direction of progress remains positive, even if far too slow.
True - although the sequence of events that led to this particular powerful person's entire email and photo archive being made public for anyone to read was and is rather unlikely
Though I'm pretty sure that there have always been powerful people (nearly always men, let's face it) using their power for selfish, cruel gratification and to cover it up afterwards. And in the grand sweep of history, things are less bad now than in other centuries. Which is one of the things that the cabal who have chosen Trump as their frontman really hate.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
To be honest the writer is probably just letting his AGI, conscious, LLM write this drivel for him.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
Not the children of the top 5% - just the top 5% academically. Doing academia for academia's sake, for free. If anyone else wants to join them and pay for it, fine.
But also, for the rest, there should be lots and lots of education available for the next tranche which is rather more targeted. It doesn't have to be academic, but it does have to be useful. And also free, or free-ish.
When I was a lad, as the saying goes, solicitors, accountants, pharmacists and many other professional people didn't have to have degrees; they qualified by means of professional examinations which in many cases could be passes as a result of part-time study. In the 30's and 50's pharmacy was a bit unusual in that one did have a full-time course.
I qualified as a Management Accountant in the 1970s without a degree, and apart from the first year at polytechnic, did it part time while working. I only studied for a degree in the late 1990s/early 2000s for my own satisfaction, and also part time while working.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
Very soon we won’t need any graduates at all
As I have been saying on here for roughly half a decade and I am entirely right
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
Go to London and you’ll either be mugged or disappointed
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
To be honest the writer is probably just letting his AGI, conscious, LLM write this drivel for him.
NASA’s Artemis II launch postponed after dress rehearsal. They were targeting this weekend but are now looking at March window for their manned trip around the moon.
It’s quite amazing how little discussion there has been about this mission, which will be the furthest humans have ever been from Earth.
Hydrogen loves to leak. Guessed it was that before even reading the release.
The classic is that you torque bolts on a connection at STP. Then the liquid hydrogen flows, at a tiny bit above absolute zero. And leaks. So you drain, and while it’s still cold, torque the bolts… then it leaks again.
Hydrogen is fine - as long as you remember at all times that it is insanely dangerous.
The word's tiniest molecule is just desiged to be able to leak.
Adding some carbon fixes so many problems.
Which is why methane is so popular for new rocket engines.
And before anyone says it, there are lots of projects to create green methane.
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
My guess is that we won’t get American justice and transparency on Epstein until Trump is gone and maybe dead - so about 3-5 years
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
My wife and I both did four days a week. This absolutely was not due to any feminism on my part, or any commitment to equality, but rather that I didn't want to miss out on bringing the kids up. As a consequence, neither of us are high flyers or have really fulfilled our potential professionally*, but we have had more time with our kids than otherwise we might. I can't comment objectively on how this has affected them, but it's been a good outcome for us. To be clear, a day at home with small children is not necessarily fun or easy, but 99% of the time is existentially fulfilling in a way that a day in the office is not. The sense of achievement from getting small children through the day and fed and put to bed is greater than almost anything I have managed at work.
Having said all that, I totally agree with turbotubbs. There's no reason we should expect men and women to go through life in exactly the same way, and it is more common than not that women pick up the bulk of the childcare. But that's not to say there are "men's roles" and "women's roles": there is just a massive load of stuff which needs doing and which we need to pick up between us.
*I'm sure I'm making excuses here. I'd never have been a high-flyer. Not motivated enough.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
Very soon we won’t need any graduates at all
As I have been saying on here for roughly half a decade and I am entirely right
And I'm sure the professional op-eds will be entirely written by Super AGI to manipulate its pets into not peeing on the carpet...
That's a great piece, Cyclefree. I generally subscribe to the sentiment that the only thing worse than the establishment are people who declare we must sweep away the establishment but I'm happy to make an exception to this in your case.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
Go to London and you’ll either be mugged or disappointed
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
You miss my point. I’m not asking MPs to direct the peelers
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
Not the children of the top 5% - just the top 5% academically. Doing academia for academia's sake, for free. If anyone else wants to join them and pay for it, fine.
But also, for the rest, there should be lots and lots of education available for the next tranche which is rather more targeted. It doesn't have to be academic, but it does have to be useful. And also free, or free-ish.
When I was a lad, as the saying goes, solicitors, accountants, pharmacists and many other professional people didn't have to have degrees; they qualified by means of professional examinations which in many cases could be passes as a result of part-time study. In the 30's and 50's pharmacy was a bit unusual in that one did have a full-time course.
I qualified as a Management Accountant in the 1970s without a degree, and apart from the first year at polytechnic, did it part time while working. I only studied for a degree in the late 1990s/early 2000s for my own satisfaction, and also part time while working.
I was talking to a solicitor in a top local practice who said he only considered Firsts from top universities. His own law degree was from a polytechnic, and the firm was set up by his father who qualified via articles straight from school and an external London (so part-time and probably correspondence course) degree.
This was also good for local authorities who could cheaply recruit bright youngsters as articled clerks even if they would probably leave once qualified as solicitors or accountants.
ETA my old organic chemistry professor had started with a part-time degree from a local college.
“As short a time ago as February, the Ministry of Plenty had issued a promise (a "categorical pledge" were the official words) that there would be no reduction of the chocolate ration during 1984. Actually, as Winston was aware, the chocolate ration was to be reduced from thirty grammes to twenty at the end of the present week. All that was needed was to substitute for the original promise a warning that it would probably be necessary to reduce the ration at some time in April.”
Labour pays millions to make hospital stats more flattering: ministers accused of massaging NHS figures by paying £3m a month to take off waiting lists patients who no longer need treatment
Removing someone from a waiting list who doesn't need treatment isn't massaging the figures it's a sensible thing to do to produce accurate figures and happened under the last govt too.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
Very soon we won’t need any graduates at all
As I have been saying on here for roughly half a decade and I am entirely right
And I'm sure the professional op-eds will be entirely written by Super AGI to manipulate its pets into not peeing on the carpet...
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
Very soon we won’t need any graduates at all
As I have been saying on here for roughly half a decade and I am entirely right
Someone will need to understand how the machines work, at the very least.
Unless you think we all end up as pets kept by the Mind.
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
MPs can report a crime to the police, if they think one has been committed. In fact, you could argue they have a duty to do so. As do we all.
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
You miss my point. I’m not asking MPs to direct the peelers
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
It's not all maybes. "The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the government to lower its tax bill. These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office." (Davey)
From @yougov From 1st - 2nd February Changes with 26th January"
Better for Reform
How long have they had an overall lead in the polling averages? They must be close to setting a record - in terms of not Tory and not Labour leading the polls
The only comparable period would be the SDP in the early 80s? But I can’t recall how long they lasted in the polls as front runners
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
You miss my point. I’m not asking MPs to direct the peelers
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
It's not all maybes. "The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the government to lower its tax bill. These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office." (Davey)
I find Ed Davey fairly ludicrous but he’s not wrong here
If Labour want to limit the damage from this, surely they should be leading the demands for justice to be done, etc
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
My guess is that we won’t get American justice and transparency on Epstein until Trump is gone and maybe dead - so about 3-5 years
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
I think it is quite likely that a new generation will be doing exactly the same things.
Consider that the ideology of the Hegseths and the Millers promotes women as being consumables. Those are values that facilitate abuse.
Thanks @Cyclefree again and what a depressing header and thread
The story goes deeper into the sewer with unimaginable behaviour and depravity
I agree with Ed Davey that this must be investigated by a Public Enquiry
You and Ed Davey want an inquiry that will drag on for years, not report till almost everyone is dead, and those who aren't have forgotten the question? You can see why Ed Davey might have wanted that for the Post Office scandal where he was peripherally involved as a minister who forgot to ask any questions, but surely you, a distinguished PBer, are not tied up with Epstein! The Covid inquiry rumbles on too. Still, even that is an improvement over what used to happen, as when the Franks inquiry whitewashed the Falklands, or the inquiry into why the Dickens dossier on paedophiles in high places (surely not!) was lost inside the Home Office, set up by Theresa May, concluded it could find no evidence because it had all been lost inside the Home Office.
So no.
Mandelson can be impeached. It hasn't been used since 1806 (in a similar case (relating to a previous period as Treasurer of the Navy, Dundas wasn't a minister at the time of the prosecution) but there is no reason why it can't.
One thing the British State has been very good at in recent years is creating all sorts of new labyrinthine solutions to problems that could be fixed perfectly well by dusting off historical precedents and mechanisms and statutes that have been around for centuries.
I assume that the reason it doesn’t is because it fears such matters can now be challenged in the courts, which is another reason to rebalance their role in our democracy.
Well, it's simple. If a prosecution fails, then you introduce new legislation.
Shamima Begum could have been tried under the Treason Act, she was clearly adhering to the Queen's enemies, at home or (in fact, and) abroad.
Genuinely strange thing. Reform are usually first out of the blocks on any major scandal involving the British political establishment. But on Epstein it's tumbleweed.
Maybe they're working on the basis that you should never interrupt your opponents when they're making a mistake.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
My wife and I both did four days a week. This absolutely was not due to any feminism on my part, or any commitment to equality, but rather that I didn't want to miss out on bringing the kids up. As a consequence, neither of us are high flyers or have really fulfilled our potential professionally*, but we have had more time with our kids than otherwise we might. I can't comment objectively on how this has affected them, but it's been a good outcome for us. To be clear, a day at home with small children is not necessarily fun or easy, but 99% of the time is existentially fulfilling in a way that a day in the office is not. The sense of achievement from getting small children through the day and fed and put to bed is greater than almost anything I have managed at work.
Having said all that, I totally agree with turbotubbs. There's no reason we should expect men and women to go through life in exactly the same way, and it is more common than not that women pick up the bulk of the childcare. But that's not to say there are "men's roles" and "women's roles": there is just a massive load of stuff which needs doing and which we need to pick up between us.
*I'm sure I'm making excuses here. I'd never have been a high-flyer. Not motivated enough.
Now we have a child our lives have changed. I've always done the vast majority of the cooking, my wife has now taken on the voluminous washing pile (linked, I think, and don't know why to having a utility room). Who does most of the chores? Almost impossible to say, but we both contribute.
I would also say I find looking after my son for any length of time to be quite hard - I love him, but keeping him entertained for a day is tough. But worthwhile.
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
My guess is that we won’t get American justice and transparency on Epstein until Trump is gone and maybe dead - so about 3-5 years
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
I think it is quite likely that a new generation will be doing exactly the same things.
Consider that the ideology of the Hegseths and the Millers promotes women as being consumables. Those are values that facilitate abuse.
I disagree strongly. Not because humans have become nicer and billionaires have stopped being kinky and hedonistic but because I don’t think an Epstein could get away with it now. Stuff would leak on social media very quickly
It might happen in a truly closed society like China or Iran but even there I wonder
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
I would say that London is untidy, expensive and with low crime relative to many big cities round the world. With lots and lots of public transport.
If like rural Dutch towns (of a certain type) with polished cobblestones, and every shop front polished and freshly painted, it’s not for you. Note that such places are usually very empty.
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
Fees should be at market rate, so economics or law at Cambridge say is far more expensive to study and literature or art at say Manchester Met is fat cheaper
So degrees like Classics at Oxford - do we rate that according to the quality of the degree, or to the quality of networking they provide?
If the former, they should be negative fees.
If the latter, off the scale.
I wonder if we have come full circle and HYUFD is right and only the children of the top five percent of earners should go to University and free at the point of delivery.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
There's a sensible medium somewhere between the current situation and 1931. We do need more graduates than we used to have in subjects that are different to before - we just don't need so many they massively overflow and end up as disillusioned shop workers or recruitment consultants.
It is complicated. Education is generally a public good. The complicating factor is that rarely is university a trade school. The value of an Oxford degree in Classics, Geography or Chemistry is as a finishing school providing a network of contacts and teaching which knife and fork go with which course.
How can you not remember receiving 75,000 dollars ?
Does Mandelson seriously think anyone is going to believe this ?
I'm willing to be a guinea pig to find out if this is possible.
If somebody will give me $75,000 dollars and come back to me in 17 years we will see if I've remembered.
You’d need a control group who didn’t get $75k, and then we’d randomise you to one or other group.
How would that work? You can't not remember not receiving something.
No, it has to be give me $75,000 and see if I remember.
A Study: To look at the potential link between sudden large influxes of wealth and memory loss.
Your study would need to take into account the possibility that the person might receive large sums of money so often that naturally they wouldn't recall any specific event.
Indeed. I'm willing to volunteer for this part of the study.
In all seriousness, my business account gets fairly chunky payments in and out all the time - it's the nature of doing business. 15 years later I might remember very exceptional payments, but ask me about a random £30k (that being a fairly typical invoice size) and it will almost certainly have been forgotten into a haze of similar transactions.
That said, I've a good explanation for why I receive dozens of large payments every year, and alas, I'm not filthy rich as I have to spend most of it on making the things we sell, rather than topping up my personal bank account. Lacking such an explanation, I'm not sure Lord Yum-yum will find a claim of "I didn't notice $75k arrive in the bank because that sort of thing happened every week" helps his cause very much.
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
You miss my point. I’m not asking MPs to direct the peelers
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
It's not all maybes. "The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the government to lower its tax bill. These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office." (Davey)
A slightly provocative press column by Andrew Brown (Church Times), pointing out that safeguarding as purely "outside process" is also problematic, because it becomes a tick box exercise:
I once had a rather hot and quite kinky American girlfriend called Tiffany
I dated her when she was in her late 20s about ten or twelve years ago. She used to tell me hair raising stories about when she was a stunning girl in her teens and she got flown around as a harem in a private jet by some billionaire. And was asked to do REDACTED REDACTED - seriously omg kinky weirdness
Looking back, I have a strong suspicion she was talking about Epstein
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
MPs can report a crime to the police, if they think one has been committed. In fact, you could argue they have a duty to do so. As do we all.
From @yougov From 1st - 2nd February Changes with 26th January"
Better for Reform
How long have they had an overall lead in the polling averages? They must be close to setting a record - in terms of not Tory and not Labour leading the polls
The only comparable period would be the SDP in the early 80s? But I can’t recall how long they lasted in the polls as front runners
They've led in most polls since 16th April 2025, and been in first place in 213 consecutive polls starting on 2nd May last year.
I once had a rather hot and quite kinky American girlfriend called Tiffany
I dated her when she was in her late 20s about ten or twelve years ago. She used to tell me hair raising stories about when she was a stunning girl in her teens and she got flown around as a harem in a private jet by some billionaire. And was asked to do REDACTED REDACTED - seriously omg kinky weirdness
Looking back, I have a strong suspicion she was talking about Epstein
If not, how many other billionnaires were, er, flying below the radar?
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
My wife and I both did four days a week. This absolutely was not due to any feminism on my part, or any commitment to equality, but rather that I didn't want to miss out on bringing the kids up. As a consequence, neither of us are high flyers or have really fulfilled our potential professionally*, but we have had more time with our kids than otherwise we might. I can't comment objectively on how this has affected them, but it's been a good outcome for us. To be clear, a day at home with small children is not necessarily fun or easy, but 99% of the time is existentially fulfilling in a way that a day in the office is not. The sense of achievement from getting small children through the day and fed and put to bed is greater than almost anything I have managed at work.
Having said all that, I totally agree with turbotubbs. There's no reason we should expect men and women to go through life in exactly the same way, and it is more common than not that women pick up the bulk of the childcare. But that's not to say there are "men's roles" and "women's roles": there is just a massive load of stuff which needs doing and which we need to pick up between us.
*I'm sure I'm making excuses here. I'd never have been a high-flyer. Not motivated enough.
Now we have a child our lives have changed. I've always done the vast majority of the cooking, my wife has now taken on the voluminous washing pile (linked, I think, and don't know why to having a utility room). Who does most of the chores? Almost impossible to say, but we both contribute.
I would also say I find looking after my son for any length of time to be quite hard - I love him, but keeping him entertained for a day is tough. But worthwhile.
That's a nice little insight. And close to the way it has worked out in practice in our house - I feed 'em, she clothes 'em.
We're through the days where the kids also need to be kept entertained now. Life is much easier by comparison. Regrettably, even the memory of how intense those years were is starting to fade. I want to remember how hard it was as well as the lovely little vignettes, because how hard it was was entwined with the sense of achievement at the end of each day.
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
My guess is that we won’t get American justice and transparency on Epstein until Trump is gone and maybe dead - so about 3-5 years
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
I think it is quite likely that a new generation will be doing exactly the same things.
Consider that the ideology of the Hegseths and the Millers promotes women as being consumables. Those are values that facilitate abuse.
I disagree strongly. Not because humans have become nicer and billionaires have stopped being kinky and hedonistic but because I don’t think an Epstein could get away with it now. Stuff would leak on social media very quickly
It might happen in a truly closed society like China or Iran but even there I wonder
Those ayatollahs - they are really into their REDACTED REDACTED....
I once had a rather hot and quite kinky American girlfriend called Tiffany
I dated her when she was in her late 20s about ten or twelve years ago. She used to tell me hair raising stories about when she was a stunning girl in her teens and she got flown around as a harem in a private jet by some billionaire. And was asked to do REDACTED REDACTED - seriously omg kinky weirdness
Looking back, I have a strong suspicion she was talking about Epstein
If not, how many other billionnaires were, er, flying below the radar?
We discussed this. Me and Tiff. She made it clear it was a known thing - billionaires fly beautiful girls around the world in private jets. It happens now with Arab princelings shipping a dozen Russian “models” to the Maldives for a party
But Epstein was clearly working on a higher more industrialised and disturbing level of depravity
And looking back at some of the details she let slip - it does seem to me it was likely Epstein
Off topic: is the Martin Lewis campaigning against the evils of Reeves' student loans related to that guy Martin Lewis who enthusiastically promoted the scheme in 2011/12? I think he's wrong again and that most iniquitous aspect of the loans is the RPI+ interest rate. I've always opposed student loans and ideally would clear the debt but that's clearly not going to be politically palatable and very expensive.
Yes, they are related. But to be fair, the situation has changed in some ways. The loans were intended to be payments which got paid off at a reasonable %, starting at a reasonable salary level for a reasonable length of time, with reasonable interest rate meaning that it would be paid off by many in due course.
The % of relevant salary has not, IIRC, changed. It is 9%. But 9% extra for ever on the squeezed middle starting at the minimum wage salary level with interest rates by which after lots of years you still owe more than you borrowed, paying off until you are over 60, and where the graduate premium is small for many, and from which the super rich are exempt because daddy seems onerous.
The student loan system is crazy for most people, at least those going straight from school at 18 or 19.
Start with the usury of the interest rates being well over the base rate, and the minimum repayment income now little more than minimum wage.
Parents are better off taking out a second mortgage if they have equity in property, and coming to some sort of agreement with their offspring.
Unless they wanted to study something for a specific profession such as medicine or engineering, I’d be advising my hypothetical 18-year-old to learn a trade and get on the housing ladder as quickly as possible, then look at further study if they want to.
Best to pay the fees upfront, even if it means taking out another loan.
That also means not having to deal with the Student Loan Company. They are not known as the Fucking Stupid Loan Company for no reason.
Subsidiary of this lot?
The interest rate was always RPI +3% for those student loans, so it's always been a poor deal, and the threshold lagging inflation was also obvious from the outset. Also obvious from the outset were the levels of bad debt and that people would opt out of repayment by emigrating or choosing to stay below the repayment threshold. Apparently underwriting bad debt now makes up 90% of govt spending on undergraduate higher education.
I have two daughters, one at Uni and one now working. If they are like my (ex) wife, they will work for a few years before they get above the threshold, pay a minimal amount back for a year or two, get married, have children and thereafter work part time ensuring they never earn enough to pay anything else back. (I could cynically add, screw their ex-husband so they have enough money never to need to work full-time again, but I trust they are both better than that) Of course if they never have children it won't matter, they can afford the repayments.
If I had had a son I would have advised him to get a job and only go to Uni later if it was absolutely necessary, and if he'd saved up enough to be able to afford the fees up front. Or never have children.
Sadly there still doesn't seem to be much gender equality in terms of career/home balance in most of the younger couples I know (the girls all seem to pick a slightly older man,a couple of years more advanced in his career, so naturally the higher earner, who just happens to be male, continues working full time...).
At risk of being too facile, and clearly this will be a huge generalisation, becoming a mother changes women. Its a story as old as women having careers, then having a baby and re-evaluating what their priorities are. Spending time with the offspring is just so much better than being back at work and paying someone else to raise your child. It happens for some men too, but mostly its the former.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
My wife and I both did four days a week. This absolutely was not due to any feminism on my part, or any commitment to equality, but rather that I didn't want to miss out on bringing the kids up. As a consequence, neither of us are high flyers or have really fulfilled our potential professionally*, but we have had more time with our kids than otherwise we might. I can't comment objectively on how this has affected them, but it's been a good outcome for us. To be clear, a day at home with small children is not necessarily fun or easy, but 99% of the time is existentially fulfilling in a way that a day in the office is not. The sense of achievement from getting small children through the day and fed and put to bed is greater than almost anything I have managed at work.
Having said all that, I totally agree with turbotubbs. There's no reason we should expect men and women to go through life in exactly the same way, and it is more common than not that women pick up the bulk of the childcare. But that's not to say there are "men's roles" and "women's roles": there is just a massive load of stuff which needs doing and which we need to pick up between us.
*I'm sure I'm making excuses here. I'd never have been a high-flyer. Not motivated enough.
Now we have a child our lives have changed. I've always done the vast majority of the cooking, my wife has now taken on the voluminous washing pile (linked, I think, and don't know why to having a utility room). Who does most of the chores? Almost impossible to say, but we both contribute.
I would also say I find looking after my son for any length of time to be quite hard - I love him, but keeping him entertained for a day is tough. But worthwhile.
My elder grandson, father of (so far) our only great-child, could, more or less, have written that.
Apparently MPs are saying “maybe Mandelson should get a visit from Plod”
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe?
Because it's not up to MPs to instruct the plod to arrest people.
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
You miss my point. I’m not asking MPs to direct the peelers
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
It's not all maybes. "The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the government to lower its tax bill. These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office." (Davey)
..“We are aware of the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice,” said Commander Ella Marriott of the Metropolitan Police.
“Following this release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”..
On that photo: so fixated are we all on Peter's Pants that noone has commented on the coffee table books: "Art" and "The Beatles" - this is almost implausibly generic, no? Do real people really have coffee table books? And if they do, surely they display more personality than this?
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
Over 460 Epstein Files on Trump Removed - Yes, THAT ONE TOO
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
My guess is that we won’t get American justice and transparency on Epstein until Trump is gone and maybe dead - so about 3-5 years
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
I think it is quite likely that a new generation will be doing exactly the same things.
Consider that the ideology of the Hegseths and the Millers promotes women as being consumables. Those are values that facilitate abuse.
I disagree strongly. Not because humans have become nicer and billionaires have stopped being kinky and hedonistic but because I don’t think an Epstein could get away with it now. Stuff would leak on social media very quickly
It might happen in a truly closed society like China or Iran but even there I wonder
Those ayatollahs - they are really into their REDACTED REDACTED....
Google "bacha bazi" if you want to be disturbed by the kinky stuff Islamists enjoy
That's a great piece, Cyclefree. I generally subscribe to the sentiment that the only thing worse than the establishment are people who declare we must sweep away the establishment but I'm happy to make an exception to this in your case.
The answer is, of course, to sweep away the establishment *as a rolling process of renewal*.
Due to the expansion of the permanent apparatus of state, there is a very large… blob (ha!) of people who are continuous across governments.
Not so much civil servants, as the group that often creates policy at a level just below* ministers.
We need to impose ethics and accountability here. See the Post Office mess.
*some would say they have more power than ministers.
On that photo: so fixated are we all on Peter's Pants that noone has commented on the coffee table books: "Art" and "The Beatles" - this is almost implausibly generic, no? Do real people really have coffee table books? And if they do, surely they display more personality than this?
That's why I am sure it is Epstein's NYC townhouse
One of the striking things about all these photos is how dreary and tasteless the decor is. Beige, banal, generic, with the odd bit of creepy art
I know really rich people with this aesthetic taste. They don't have any taste. They don't care. They order in, and do it quite cheaply. And of course they have ten houses so they don't especially care about individual spaces. They just want lots of property and lots of rooms
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
On that photo: so fixated are we all on Peter's Pants that noone has commented on the coffee table books: "Art" and "The Beatles" - this is almost implausibly generic, no? Do real people really have coffee table books? And if they do, surely they display more personality than this?
That's why I am sure it is Epstein's NYC townhouse
One of the striking things about all these photos is how dreary and tasteless the decor is. Beige, banal, generic, with the odd bit of creepy art
I know really rich people with this aesthetic taste. They don't have any taste. They don't care. They order in, and do it quite cheaply. And of course they have ten houses so they don't especially care about individual spaces. They just want lots of property and lots of rooms
It's as if he's said to an interior decorator 'provide me with a generic room which looks neat but slightly lived in if you don't look too closely'.
I find it hard to disagree with the pile on of Mandleson. Although I would argue that Starmer took a risk appointing him on the basis that he could get on with a Trump Whitehouse. Clearly he would have known that Mandelson moved in that crowd (amongst others). But, I strongly doubt he would have known the extent of it, as shown in the latest drop from the DoJ. It is also questionable whether a vetting would necessarily found, or realised the saliency, of the details disclosed. So the way I judge it is Starmer took a risk without understanding the scale of that risk, and it has blown up massive. Which is in its own way amusing.
My other thought is whether the sort of leaking exposed by Mandleson is common or uncommon amongst senior politicians. I suspect it is common (obviously Braverman got caught doing it, but Gove defended his right to use his personal email while in Government - I am sure he wasn’t doing it just to keep track of emails from his kid’s school). Aside from trying to get honest politicians into politics (no laughing at the back). How does this culture, which I presume also existed in the pre-digital age, get wiped out? Or is it just one of the prices we pay for a representative democracy - especially as deleting messages on WhatsApp and encrypted channels like Signal/Telegram are table stakes now.
On that photo: so fixated are we all on Peter's Pants that noone has commented on the coffee table books: "Art" and "The Beatles" - this is almost implausibly generic, no? Do real people really have coffee table books? And if they do, surely they display more personality than this?
That's why I am sure it is Epstein's NYC townhouse
One of the striking things about all these photos is how dreary and tasteless the decor is. Beige, banal, generic, with the odd bit of creepy art
I know really rich people with this aesthetic taste. They don't have any taste. They don't care. They order in, and do it quite cheaply. And of course they have ten houses so they don't especially care about individual spaces. They just want lots of property and lots of rooms
Sky News matched up pantie Pete photos to Epsteins NYC appartment using publicly available photos yesterday.
An author selling out his own neighbourhood for ££."
+++
Yes, quite disgraceful, and such hackneyed prose
"When a man is tired of London, he is tired of having his mobile phone stolen"
Is this meant to be wit?
I guess my stalker will be satisfied, seeing as the column has generated 500+ comments, was on the front page all day, and is one of the most read articles of the week, despite being but 600 words long, but frankly I'd be ashamed of churning out this bilge
And yet I live in London and see nothing of this apparently pervasive sense of decline and disorder. How odd!
It's an elephant-on-a-toadstool article, with about 2 or 3 bits of anecdata and world-shaking conclusions.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
I would say that London is untidy, expensive and with low crime relative to many big cities round the world. With lots and lots of public transport.
If like rural Dutch towns (of a certain type) with polished cobblestones, and every shop front polished and freshly painted, it’s not for you. Note that such places are usually very empty.
I've lived in London most of my life and it's a great city. It was when I got here and is even more so now. The Right's continual smearing of it as a rathole is political not factual. If you're pushing a parochial nativist vision for the country the last thing you want is for its capital city, encapsulating a very different vision, to be viewed positively.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
One of my previous employers and the contract will be highly profitable so good for the employee pension fund.
Genuine question - when was Scottish water pumped south, and how?
It's a cybernat conspiracy theory they picked up from Iranian propaganda accounts. It's depressing how easily partisans on all sides have been willing to pick up and run with made-up nonsense propagated by Iranians/Russians/other disinformation operations.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
What a fecking mess.
It is all brilliant news for Farage, who never had dealings with Epstein.
On that photo: so fixated are we all on Peter's Pants that noone has commented on the coffee table books: "Art" and "The Beatles" - this is almost implausibly generic, no? Do real people really have coffee table books? And if they do, surely they display more personality than this?
That's why I am sure it is Epstein's NYC townhouse
One of the striking things about all these photos is how dreary and tasteless the decor is. Beige, banal, generic, with the odd bit of creepy art
I know really rich people with this aesthetic taste. They don't have any taste. They don't care. They order in, and do it quite cheaply. And of course they have ten houses so they don't especially care about individual spaces. They just want lots of property and lots of rooms
Epstein's Paris flat for Mandelson. Epstein's NY house for Andrew MbW.
As for the books, no less an authority than Peter Crouch pointed out all footballers' houses look identical because they use the same few interior designers. Likewise for billionaires, I expect.
That makes more sense, and Welsh power gets exported to England as well.
I can't see how you get major water supplies south of the border region given how hilly it is. Nor should you really need to given the abundance of fresh water resources in that area and the potential for reservoirs - if they can only move the water.
Heck, they don't even use Kielder Water fully for that reason.
Thanks @Cyclefree again and what a depressing header and thread
The story goes deeper into the sewer with unimaginable behaviour and depravity
I agree with Ed Davey that this must be investigated by a Public Enquiry
You and Ed Davey want an inquiry that will drag on for years, not report till almost everyone is dead, and those who aren't have forgotten the question? You can see why Ed Davey might have wanted that for the Post Office scandal where he was peripherally involved as a minister who forgot to ask any questions, but surely you, a distinguished PBer, are not tied up with Epstein! The Covid inquiry rumbles on too. Still, even that is an improvement over what used to happen, as when the Franks inquiry whitewashed the Falklands, or the inquiry into why the Dickens dossier on paedophiles in high places (surely not!) was lost inside the Home Office, set up by Theresa May, concluded it could find no evidence because it had all been lost inside the Home Office.
So no.
Mandelson can be impeached. It hasn't been used since 1806 (in a similar case (relating to a previous period as Treasurer of the Navy, Dundas wasn't a minister at the time of the prosecution) but there is no reason why it can't.
One thing the British State has been very good at in recent years is creating all sorts of new labyrinthine solutions to problems that could be fixed perfectly well by dusting off historical precedents and mechanisms and statutes that have been around for centuries.
I assume that the reason it doesn’t is because it fears such matters can now be challenged in the courts, which is another reason to rebalance their role in our democracy.
Well, it's simple. If a prosecution fails, then you introduce new legislation.
Shamima Begum could have been tried under the Treason Act, she was clearly adhering to the Queen's enemies, at home or (in fact, and) abroad.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
What a fecking mess.
It is all brilliant news for Farage, who never had dealings with Epstein.
In at least one email forwarded to Epstein, an email address for “John Pond” was in copy. The Guardian – its own extensive support for Mandelson over the years is notable – reports it “understands was the code name used by advisers when forwarding to Brown’s secure email account.” Code name, what?
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
These are the same people who will tell the public, in relation to an ID cards database, that if they have nothing to hide then they have nothing to fear. So why were they so anxious to hide things from us, the public? What do they have to fear?
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
What a fecking mess.
That is a disgusting remark.
Pigs are very clean animals, actually.
And very tasty
Mandelson is a sort of pig.
Not only lots of pork, but his attitude comes with ample sauce.
Comments
It's important to remember that the entire thing is manipulated, in order to protect Trump and distract attention from him, by the corrupted DoJ and other departments.
For example extra prominence given to Bill Clinton, redaction of "Trump", and other tactics.
What a pair lol.
Ms C suggested the Russians were more likely suspects. This seems plausible to me, and is more easily said openly since their operatives are evidently a good deal less efficient than their Israeli counterparts.
Oh, you mean 'in London'...
Of course the decision is always for the minister to make, and one supposes there are differing degrees of forcefulness that the senior CS might make in advising against the appointment.
That file will be back on Starmer’s desk this morning, and you can bet he’s reading every single word of it trying to find a vetting failure to save his own arse.
Hence my wife now works a three day week, and has our son for two days. Less pay, less chance of promotion, but more quality time with the little dude.
Sometimes equality is not about men and women wanting and getting the same thing.
However, in your comment you missed what is probably the most disgracefully delayed investigation of all; the Infected Blood Inquiry. I know a lady in her 90's who was one of those infected and to my knowledge she doesn't yet know the results of the Inquiry as they affect her.
Let’s just hope that someone can talk some sense in to Putin soon. There is the third round of the Abu Dhabi talks later this week, with US and UAE mediating.
The sticking point is said to be the obvious one, of territory. Ukraine wants a return to the 1991 border and Russia wants the whole Donbas region as well as Crimea.
The compromise of a DMZ in currently occupied Ukrainian territory, to allow for more talks, was accepted by Ukraine and rejected by Russia last week.
Scumbags need not apply. They can't afford it!
But also, for the rest, there should be lots and lots of education available for the next tranche which is rather more targeted. It doesn't have to be academic, but it does have to be useful. And also free, or free-ish.
She worked full-, or nearly - time all the time I was at school and one of my early memories...... I was about 9 I think, is of me having a major test in class, and coming top, by (it didn't last) quite a bit. I ran home hoping, hoping, that my mother would be home for me to tell her; I didn't want the first person in the family to know to be my mother's sister, who kept house for us.
I think it's just what happens when the writer is prematurely 86.
Fico's national security adviser resigned:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cnvgljj1dygo
And it sounds as though Norway are debating whether to prevent the Crown Princess becoming Queen.
wtf. How can this be a maybe
There is plentiful prima facie evidence of him committing numerous crimes. He may of course be innocent - but he can prove that in a court of law (and good luck to him)
Why is this a maybe? Mandy needs his collar felt. And I say that as a sort-of admirer. I like politicians who are devious smart and ruthless. They get things done. I suspect Mandelson might have made a pretty good prime minster (and then been less seduced by weirdo billionaires)
Nonetheless justice must be seen to be done. Same goes for Andrew if more evidence emerges. And about 3000 important men in America
I assume that the reason it doesn’t is because it fears such matters can now be challenged in the courts, which is another reason to rebalance their role in our democracy.
Alright for some
On Jan 30th, there were 5,361 files when you searched for Trump. Today, February 2nd, 4,896 files remain.
The INFAMOUS File on Trump that is in the video below has been removed.
https://x.com/RyanRozbiani/status/2018480449061003339
As I have been saying on here for roughly half a decade and I am entirely right
That's the sort of thing that happens in Trump's America.
SeanT is a Tw@t!
Which is why methane is so popular for new rocket engines.
And before anyone says it, there are lots of projects to create green methane.
By then most of the implicated men will be very old and quite powerless and a new generation will tell the truth. Whether it is Dems or GOP hardly matters
But the truth will come out. Just not now while the old guys have just enough power, still, to redact and refuse
To be clear, a day at home with small children is not necessarily fun or easy, but 99% of the time is existentially fulfilling in a way that a day in the office is not. The sense of achievement from getting small children through the day and fed and put to bed is greater than almost anything I have managed at work.
Having said all that, I totally agree with turbotubbs. There's no reason we should expect men and women to go through life in exactly the same way, and it is more common than not that women pick up the bulk of the childcare. But that's not to say there are "men's roles" and "women's roles": there is just a massive load of stuff which needs doing and which we need to pick up between us.
*I'm sure I'm making excuses here. I'd never have been a high-flyer. Not motivated enough.
I’m saying the word “maybe” is otiose re a police investigation of Mandy. They have to investigate or it really does mean the rich and powerful are protected - in the UK as much as the USA
This was also good for local authorities who could cheaply recruit bright youngsters as articled clerks even if they would probably leave once qualified as solicitors or accountants.
ETA my old organic chemistry professor had started with a part-time degree from a local college.
🌹 LAB: 19% (-2)
🌳 CON: 18% (+1)
🟢 GRN: 17% (+1)
🔶️ LDEM: 14% (=)
From @yougov
From 1st - 2nd February
Changes with 26th January"
Unless you think we all end up as pets kept by the Mind.
"The Epstein files suggest Peter Mandelson leaked sensitive government information to a convicted sex offender while serving as a minister, and even suggested a US bank should threaten the government to lower its tax bill.
These allegations are incredibly serious, it is now only right that the police investigate Peter Mandelson for potential misconduct in public office."
(Davey)
How long have they had an overall lead in the polling averages? They must be close to setting a record - in terms of not Tory and not Labour leading the polls
The only comparable period would be the SDP in the early 80s? But I can’t recall how long they lasted in the polls as front runners
If Labour want to limit the damage from this, surely they should be leading the demands for justice to be done, etc
Consider that the ideology of the Hegseths and the Millers promotes women as being consumables. Those are values that facilitate abuse.
Shamima Begum could have been tried under the Treason Act, she was clearly adhering to the Queen's enemies, at home or (in fact, and) abroad.
Starmer joke on Mandelson’s appointment as 🇬🇧 Ambassador to 🇺🇸:
‘A real buzz around Washington’
‘A new leader’
‘A pioneer in business & politics’
‘Some love him’
‘Some love to hate him’
‘But to us he’s just Peter’
Starmer knew who he was appointing & appointed him regardless.
https://x.com/beckettunite/status/2018437167337308557?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
I would also say I find looking after my son for any length of time to be quite hard - I love him, but keeping him entertained for a day is tough. But worthwhile.
It might happen in a truly closed society like China or Iran but even there I wonder
If like rural Dutch towns (of a certain type) with polished cobblestones, and every shop front polished and freshly painted, it’s not for you. Note that such places are usually very empty.
In all seriousness, my business account gets fairly chunky payments in and out all the time - it's the nature of doing business. 15 years later I might remember very exceptional payments, but ask me about a random £30k (that being a fairly typical invoice size) and it will almost certainly have been forgotten into a haze of similar transactions.
That said, I've a good explanation for why I receive dozens of large payments every year, and alas, I'm not filthy rich as I have to spend most of it on making the things we sell, rather than topping up my personal bank account. Lacking such an explanation, I'm not sure Lord Yum-yum will find a claim of "I didn't notice $75k arrive in the bank because that sort of thing happened every week" helps his cause very much.
When the Church was judged only in private, by insiders, the results were sometimes terrible. But to be judged only in public and by outsiders is not a guarantee of justice either.
https://www.churchtimes.co.uk/articles/2026/30-january/comment/columnists/viewpoint-with-andrew-brown-when-everything-is-safeguarding-no-one-is-safe
(Anyone interested should get in as a "two a month free" article.)
I once had a rather hot and quite kinky American girlfriend called Tiffany
I dated her when she was in her late 20s about ten or twelve years ago. She used to tell me hair raising stories about when she was a stunning girl in her teens and she got flown around as a harem in a private jet by some billionaire. And was asked to do REDACTED REDACTED - seriously omg kinky weirdness
Looking back, I have a strong suspicion she was talking about Epstein
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election#National_poll_results
We're through the days where the kids also need to be kept entertained now. Life is much easier by comparison. Regrettably, even the memory of how intense those years were is starting to fade. I want to remember how hard it was as well as the lovely little vignettes, because how hard it was was entwined with the sense of achievement at the end of each day.
But Epstein was clearly working on a higher more industrialised and disturbing level of depravity
And looking back at some of the details she let slip - it does seem to me it was likely Epstein
https://rozenberg.substack.com/p/misconduct-in-public-office-eed
..“We are aware of the further release of millions of court documents in relation to Jeffrey Epstein by the United States Department of Justice,” said Commander Ella Marriott of the Metropolitan Police.
“Following this release and subsequent media reporting, the Met has received a number of reports relating to alleged misconduct in public office. The reports will all be reviewed to determine if they meet the criminal threshold for investigation.”..
Due to the expansion of the permanent apparatus of state, there is a very large… blob (ha!) of people who are continuous across governments.
Not so much civil servants, as the group that often creates policy at a level just below* ministers.
We need to impose ethics and accountability here. See the Post Office mess.
*some would say they have more power than ministers.
https://news.sky.com/liveblog-webview/politics-latest-mandelson-quits-labour-over-epstein-links-as-starmer-calls-for-him-to-lose-peerage-12593360
https://x.com/highbrow_nobrow/status/2018371510080032884
One of the striking things about all these photos is how dreary and tasteless the decor is. Beige, banal, generic, with the odd bit of creepy art
I know really rich people with this aesthetic taste. They don't have any taste. They don't care. They order in, and do it quite cheaply. And of course they have ten houses so they don't especially care about individual spaces. They just want lots of property and lots of rooms
This doesn’t make sense. Brown was the first PM who used email extensively for his ‘email red box’ – and he was directly emailed notes from his team all the time. His senior officials and advisers all had his official email address…
Multiple former officials have confirmed to Guido that the use of code words under the Brown government like “John Pond” was a tactic to avoid freedom of information laws. Substituting real names like “Gordon Brown” with code names put any document out of the scope of freedom of information requests. One official recalls it was “common practice in the Cabinet”. Blair had introduced FOI.
https://order-order.com/2026/02/03/exc-epstein-files-reveal-labour-used-code-names-to-avoid-freedom-of-information-laws/
The same did occur to me, why did the PM have a separate secret email account under a nom de guerre.
I seemed to remember during cash for honours scandal there was all the talk of a private email server etc to keep stuff off the record.
It also reminded me of the film Il Divo (clue it is not about the band). Worth a watch for political nerds. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Il_divo_(film)
I find it hard to disagree with the pile on of Mandleson. Although I would argue that Starmer took a risk appointing him on the basis that he could get on with a Trump Whitehouse. Clearly he would have known that Mandelson moved in that crowd (amongst others). But, I strongly doubt he would have known the extent of it, as shown in the latest drop from the DoJ. It is also questionable whether a vetting would necessarily found, or realised the saliency, of the details disclosed. So the way I judge it is Starmer took a risk without understanding the scale of that risk, and it has blown up massive. Which is in its own way amusing.
My other thought is whether the sort of leaking exposed by Mandleson is common or uncommon amongst senior politicians. I suspect it is common (obviously Braverman got caught doing it, but Gove defended his right to use his personal email while in Government - I am sure he wasn’t doing it just to keep track of emails from his kid’s school). Aside from trying to get honest politicians into politics (no laughing at the back). How does this culture, which I presume also existed in the pre-digital age, get wiped out? Or is it just one of the prices we pay for a representative democracy - especially as deleting messages on WhatsApp and encrypted channels like Signal/Telegram are table stakes now.
The stink that is emanating from the elite resembles that from the most crowded pig shed.
And there Farage is, poised to give the British public the chance to jump from the frying pan down to the inferno in the pits of hell.
What a fecking mess.
Pigs are very clean animals, actually.
https://www.gov.scot/publications/foi-202000104273/
Andrew and Mandelson photos in Epstein files were taken inside US paedophile's homes
https://news.sky.com/story/andrew-mountbatten-windsor-and-peter-mandelson-pictures-from-epstein-files-were-taken-inside-paedophiles-homes-sky-news-analysis-finds-13502362
As for the books, no less an authority than Peter Crouch pointed out all footballers' houses look identical because they use the same few interior designers. Likewise for billionaires, I expect.
I can't see how you get major water supplies south of the border region given how hilly it is. Nor should you really need to given the abundance of fresh water resources in that area and the potential for reservoirs - if they can only move the water.
Heck, they don't even use Kielder Water fully for that reason.
Er - citation required.
Not only lots of pork, but his attitude comes with ample sauce.