steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 6:39:14 GMT
pjw1961 "Slave Labour" Like you I distinctly remember being paid as a police officer, a public servant and not only was Faith paid, quite a considerable amount of money as a senior NHS nurse but they let her be elected as the regional president of the Royal college of nursing union. They must have kept the slaves in another building! Goodwin's law strikes again.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 6:44:23 GMT
A small glimmer of hope
"UK use of gas and coal for electricity at lowest since 1957, figures show Fossil fuel plants contributed about a third of electricity supplies in 2023, down 20% on 2022 and renewables a record 42%" The increase in renewables includes substantial imports of hydropower generated energy from Norway and Nuclear power from France.
The nimby attitude of the Tories makes on shore wind and solar generation, the cheapest green sources more difficult in the U.K. than in more enlightened parts of Europe.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,005
|
Post by neilj on Jan 3, 2024 7:00:37 GMT
While Fraser Nelson should be congratulated on identifying Sunak's lie, it certainly isn't 'off-brand', he's got lots of experience in lying and it's very much on brand for him. Have reproduced just some of his many lies here
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 3, 2024 8:42:00 GMT
I've reflected on what I said about and to Graham last night, as well as what others have said to him and his replies to us, and after this general comment, I will say no more on the subject. Anyway, I doubt anything I or others say will change either Graham's mind or the nature of his posting. Only Mark can insist on the latter and, assuming he's happy, Graham is perfectly entitled to continue posting as he does. It's not for me to censor or ban him. My entitlement only extends to expressing an opinion on what he sometimes says. I don't intend to flog any more dead horses.
My reflection is a general one and applies to political discussion in the round. It's about how an obsessive dislike, maybe even an irrational one too, can seep into almost every opinion or view expressed. If you loathe and detest Tony Blair, for example, as Graham clearly does, then this disfigures and slants, de facto, your view of decades of government. A detestation of the man and all his works. No nuance or objectivity. I've seen this apply to Starmer on these pages too, maybe Clegg, Thatcher and Johnson as well. There are probably other hate figures I've missed.
We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too.
I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen.
To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 3, 2024 8:57:22 GMT
I've reflected on what I said about and to Graham last night, as well as what others have said to him and his replies to us, and after this general comment, I will say no more on the subject. Anyway, I doubt anything I or others say will change either Graham's mind or the nature of his posting. Only Mark can insist on the latter and, assuming he's happy, Graham is perfectly entitled to continue posting as he does. It's not for me to censor or ban him. My entitlement only extends to expressing an opinion on what he sometimes says. I don't intend to flog any more dead horses. My reflection is a general one and applies to political discussion in the round. It's about how an obsessive dislike, maybe even an irrational one too, can seep into almost every opinion or view expressed. If you loathe and detest Tony Blair, for example, as Graham clearly does, then this disfigures and slants, de facto, your view of decades of government. A detestation of the man and all his works. No nuance or objectivity. I've seen this apply to Starmer on these pages too, maybe Clegg, Thatcher and Johnson as well. There are probably other hate figures I've missed. We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too. I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen. To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop. Indeed, however he is far from the only one. It's when the "hate" becomes focused too much on individuals, not on the overall political arguments. I find the " waste of skin" analogy insult used by another frequent poster here particularly loathsome and holocaust tainted as well.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 9:06:14 GMT
jib I think you're referring to me The comment referred either to your hero Nigel Farage or the traitor,I personally think it's fair comment in either instance. I think this is The posting you refer to "Nigel Farage says the Tories have " failed on small boats" because those who entered the country this way, the only option for the majority, whose claims for asylum status are legitimate have been granted asylum. Think about that it's akin to saying the Kindertransports that saved tens of thousands of children from the Nazi's was a failure because they were granted leave to remain. Obnoxious waste of skin. " It's not primarily an insult it's an observation based on his words and behaviour , I've posted similar comments about the rapist traitor and I stand by them. The hypocrisy of someone who is totally obsessed with insulting individual members of the minority party in a coalition over a decade ago is quite notable as well.
|
|
|
Post by steamdrivenandy on Jan 3, 2024 9:08:35 GMT
I suppose, in truth, we all have different thresholds for emotions. For some folk the threshold for hate is much lower than others and can be a genetic, inherited predilection or it might be influenced by their background and circumstances. The big problem tends to come when people with such issues are manipulated by others who feed and exploit that hatred.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,257
|
Post by steve on Jan 3, 2024 9:17:23 GMT
SDA Entirely agree both Farage and the traitor are of course examples of individuals who do precisely that.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 3, 2024 9:19:45 GMT
I disagree. Everything I've seen and heard from Starmer tells me he has a strong moral purpose and sense of fairness and equality. He has championed the underdog on many occasions during his legal career often taking these case for free and using his barrister fees to subsidise the other cases. I think he knows what should happen and believes strongly that Britain can be a better place for everyone but particularly for those who need an effective and supportive state most He is though, and that's very like me, a realist and a pragmatist. He understands that for Labour to make a difference it has to WIN. And in attempting to get into power he is making compromises and deferring a lot of policies I'm sure he wants to enact in order to build a a winning coalition across all groups. And he knows that the economy and public services are in such dire straits that it's going to take a long time to find the money to fix them. So it's steady as he goes. Of course I want more radical reshaping policies but I'd rather have modest, compromised ones that are delivered than a dream manifesto that has no chance of delivering power (2019). If he gets a big enough majority then I expect the his 2nd term manifesto will be more radical. Good Morning Barbara, I think our difference of opinion relates to what I consider a "political foundation" I have no doubts whatsoever that KS is a decent man who wishes to improve the lot of people, however that is not the same as having a foundation steeped in the history of the Labour party and either of its different wings. I agree we need realists and pragmatists to achieve and cement power. Harold Wilson is an example of such a pragmatist, whilst clearly from the left of the party he understood the balance to be achieved to win and maintain power in the UK system. My fear is that KS does not have that understanding and his approach to policy adaptation has increased my fear. At the moment, without a significant change of circumstances, Labour is on course to win a majority in the election when it takes place, my concern is that without, what I have called, a foundation there will be no unifying principles that underpin the exercise of power by Labour. However, more importantly, and I know I keep going on about this, but you need two wings to be able to fly. The stifling of one wing of the party creates two problems: firstly, frustration and discontent with a significant group of supporters and activists; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the internal private discussion of policy in cabinet becomes groupthink. The most effective policies of any government have been subject to debate, and honed to sharpness in that debate. This stifling is, I fear, likely to mean, in these volatile political times, that KS could be leading a single term administration, that would be disastrous!
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jan 3, 2024 9:42:08 GMT
Surely the reality is that Tony Blair's government inherited a benign economy compared to their predecessors, which enabled them to significantly increase spending on public services especially the NHS. If the Tories had been in power they presumably would have done the same, but to a significantly lesser extent.
And if Gordon Brown had won the 2010 election he would also have been forced to rein back on spending - but for a significantly shorter time than the Tories did.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 3, 2024 9:49:56 GMT
I've reflected on what I said about and to Graham last night, as well as what others have said to him and his replies to us, and after this general comment, I will say no more on the subject. Anyway, I doubt anything I or others say will change either Graham's mind or the nature of his posting. Only Mark can insist on the latter and, assuming he's happy, Graham is perfectly entitled to continue posting as he does. It's not for me to censor or ban him. My entitlement only extends to expressing an opinion on what he sometimes says. I don't intend to flog any more dead horses. My reflection is a general one and applies to political discussion in the round. It's about how an obsessive dislike, maybe even an irrational one too, can seep into almost every opinion or view expressed. If you loathe and detest Tony Blair, for example, as Graham clearly does, then this disfigures and slants, de facto, your view of decades of government. A detestation of the man and all his works. No nuance or objectivity. I've seen this apply to Starmer on these pages too, maybe Clegg, Thatcher and Johnson as well. There are probably other hate figures I've missed. We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too. I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen. To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop. I agree for the most part but some politicians are so sociopathically self serving, so deceitful, manipulative and contemptuous of us that strong feelings are deserved. I despise Johnson and Trump for those reasons. I don't hate Sunak, the guy's just characterless and unfit for his position. I didn't even hate Truss, just considered her bonkers and scary. Almost felt sorry for her. Johnson and Trump though? Hatred would be one way to describe my feelings towards them.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 3, 2024 10:07:15 GMT
Surely the reality is that Tony Blair's government inherited a benign economy compared to their predecessors, which enabled them to significantly increase spending on public services especially the NHS. If the Tories had been in power they presumably would have done the same, but to a significantly lesser extent. And if Gordon Brown had won the 2010 election he would also have been forced to rein back on spending - but for a significantly shorter time than the Tories did. So, things would have been very different then! Clarke and Major, despite a growing economy, showed no signs of increasing public spending appreciably in their last couple of budgets and Blair and Brown stuck with their spending plans for their first two years in government. The taps were then turned on from 1999 onwards, on a scale, and with priorities, very unlikely to have been replicated by the Tories. As for 2010, had Brown won, there is no doubt that spending would have been constrained for a period, such was the state of the post financial crash public finances, and Darling had indicated this before the election anyway, but the economy was starting to grow again in early 2010 and it is highly unlikely that the slash and burn austerity of Osborne would have been carried out by Darling and Brown. You sort of admit that in your post too, so I am a little unclear about the point you're making, really.
|
|
|
Post by wb61 on Jan 3, 2024 10:11:39 GMT
So, things would have been very different then! Clarke and Major, despite a growing economy, showed no signs of increasing public spending appreciably in their last couple of budgets and Blair and Brown stuck with their spending plans for their first two years in government. The taps were then turned on from 1999 onwards, on a scale, and with priorities, very unlikely to have been replicated by the Tories. As for 2010, had Brown won, there is no doubt that spending would have been constrained for a period, such was the state of the post financial crash public finances, and Darling had indicated this before the election anyway, but the economy was starting to grow again in early 2010 and it is highly unlikely that the slash and burn austerity of Osborne would have been carried out by Darling and Brown. You sort of admit that in your post too, so I am a little unclear about the point you're making, really. Beat me to it.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 10:14:39 GMT
I was in local government throughout the Blair/Brown years and this is frankly nonsense. I was also in local government 2010-14, during which time the council I worked for saw 40% of its income vanish thanks to Eric bloody Pickles and I (along with a lot of other people) was made redundant. There is simply no comparison. I was a member of police staff in the Met - basically a civil servant for 30 years up to 2013. I echo what you say 100% - no comparison indeed. Graham, either you got lucky, or only saw what you wanted to see, or you couldn’t see what was plain to the majority of the rest of us public servants. As a local councillor through the the 1990s and a LEA Governor of a secondary school until 2002, the really big change came when all our secondary schools became academies. Up to then nearly half of my Council's spending was in the Education Department; so yes there was a sudden reduction in income but it was matched by a sudden reduction in expenditure. This is the trouble with a "one size fits all" policy. Some London Councils were dire educationally and needed having their schools taken out of their control, but my Council had a very good reputation and moving to academies made things worse not better. Music education was one of the main losses because before academies this was a local council responsibility and afterwards the council had to negotiate a service level agreement with the Heads of all the academies. Not surprisingly, different Heads had different ideas about how important music education was and as schools dropped out of the SLA what could be offered degraded. It is only to be expected that music education is now concentrated in private sector schools.
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jan 3, 2024 10:22:01 GMT
Surely the reality is that Tony Blair's government inherited a benign economy compared to their predecessors, which enabled them to significantly increase spending on public services especially the NHS. If the Tories had been in power they presumably would have done the same, but to a significantly lesser extent. And if Gordon Brown had won the 2010 election he would also have been forced to rein back on spending - but for a significantly shorter time than the Tories did. So, things would have been very different then! Clarke and Major, despite a growing economy, showed no signs of increasing public spending appreciably in their last couple of budgets and Blair and Brown stuck with their spending plans for their first two years in government. The taps were then turned on from 1999 onwards, on a scale, and with priorities, very unlikely to have been replicated by the Tories. As for 2010, had Brown won, there is no doubt that spending would have been constrained for a period, such was the state of the post financial crash public finances, and Darling had indicated this before the election anyway, but the economy was starting to grow again in early 2010 and it is highly unlikely that the slash and burn austerity of Osborne would have been carried out by Darling and Brown. You sort of admit that in your post too, so I am a little unclear about the point you're making, really. Well you've pretty much restated what I said but in more partisan language
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 3, 2024 10:23:54 GMT
domjg
I sympathise a little with what you say, and Trump is someone who pushes my disdain a little uncomfortably towards something approaching loathing at times, but even he was democratically elected (and removed) and, in those circumstances, I tend to try to row back a little and understand what it is about his character and views that garner public support. Ditto Johnson.
Where politicians have seized power and subjugate their citizens via barbaric and murderous regimes then, certainly if I was unfortunate to live in those countries, I would probably end up hating the perpetrators with all my heart.
But in a democracy, however imperfect, the people control the politicians. We can kick the scoundrels out.
Accordingly, I tend to cut democratic politicians a lot of slack. It's not easy governing a state where you ultimately rely on the consent of the people you represent and govern.
Lots of UK politicians I have little time for though. Hate? No. Can't think of one I hate. People who read my posts will know I was no fan of Corbyn the politician but I never hated the fellow. Nowhere near.
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Jan 3, 2024 10:30:09 GMT
Colin (re: "Visa policy scandal that lets poorest migrants stay in the UK.") It always strikes me as a bit rich when neo-lib brexiteers agonise over the consequences of replacing a market-led labour system with centrally planned, bureaucratic allocation. The Single Market is essentially about achieving a more optimal use of available resources, including labour. It worked well for the UK in meeting the market-led demand for labour in shortage areas. And it's arguable that productivity has been damaged by the current Whitehall-led system, in that we're bringing in twice as many immigrants with no increase in national output. In theory, I'd expect someone like you to say, "let's open up the labour market and leave it to market forces." But that sort of economic rationalism is rather trumped by disdain for the EU and all its works, it seems. I cant be responsible for what you "expect" of me. My take from O'Brien's accusations and associated data is that the Post Study visa scheme which was supposed to encourage "the brightest and the best" has done the very opposite. Reason ? -my conclusion is that the universities in question have exploited a complete failure by HO to assemble this data and monitor it.-political and administrative incompetence. On the Care Sector visas , I think the low pay environment there, caused by underfunding of the service was always going to encourage low pay entrants. Failure of Government policy. Both of these visa sectors were planned-but never monitored/managed after the event. Yes, O'Brien clearly has a point. One would expect any government to monitor carefully these policies. There is a logic to the post-study visa, but it probably needs to be restricted to employer applications, which can be vetted. I have no objection to dependent visas - I always thought Conservatives were in favour of preserving family life. And the social care issue is much wider, and a nettle that no politician is willing to grasp, as it requires a fundamental reform and a lot of money to produce a system that the country can be proud of. In the meantime people who need care have to be given it, even if it poor quality provided by uninterested immigrants on minimum wages or even less.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 3, 2024 10:49:52 GMT
So in 75 years time, 60% of the population will be immigrants, and a big chunk of the remainder will be descendants of first generation immigrants? And obviously, Brexit will have made this takeover of the Uk by foreigners a lot more obvious because it wont be white europeans arriving here. Just what happens when the leave voters who were motivated by fear of immigration understand these numbers and the intent of the leave government they elected to supercharge immigration? I did some back of an envelope calculations that showed that the native population (say those here since before WWII) would be outnumbered by 2050. In many cities they already are. And? To me it's just the modern world.
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 3, 2024 10:56:44 GMT
However, more importantly, and I know I keep going on about this, but you need two wings to be able to fly. The stifling of one wing of the party creates two problems: firstly, frustration and discontent with a significant group of supporters and activists; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the internal private discussion of policy in cabinet becomes groupthink. The most effective policies of any government have been subject to debate, and honed to sharpness in that debate. This stifling is, I fear, likely to mean, in these volatile political times, that KS could be leading a single term administration, that would be disastrous! As an outsider to Labour Party politics, I saw it as the Left wing being dominant under Miliband and, especially, Corbyn. So Labour has had almost a decade of trying to fly on one wing and half a decade of trying to fly on the other. In that sense, Blair/Brown was nearly ideal with the former business-friendly and the latter keeping the views of the Left in the conversation. It was that same left-wing dominance at the beginning of the 1980s that meant that Thatcherism was able to take hold because the Left could not accept the views of Roy Jenkins in particular. As someone whose first political party was the SDP and who had direct experience of the years after the merger I've seen things in the LibDems that would not have been out of place in the Labour party; some old Liberals hated the old SDP only a little less than they hated Labour.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 3, 2024 10:58:57 GMT
domjg I sympathise a little with what you say, and Trump is someone who pushes my disdain a little uncomfortably towards something approaching loathing at times, but even he was democratically elected (and removed) and, in those circumstances, I tend to try to row back a little and understand what it is about his character and views that garner public support. Ditto Johnson. Where politicians have seized power and subjugate their citizens via barbaric and murderous regimes then, certainly if I was unfortunate to live in those countries, I would probably end up hating the perpetrators with all my heart. But in a democracy, however imperfect, the people control the politicians. We can kick the scoundrels out. Accordingly, I tend to cut democratic politicians a lot of slack. It's not easy governing a state where you ultimately rely on the consent of the people you represent and govern. Lots of UK politicians I have little time for though. Hate? No. Can't think of one I hate. People who read my posts will know I was no fan of Corbyn the politician but I never hated the fellow. Nowhere near. Fair enough but I don't doubt the disdain Trump and even Johnson have towards democracy and the rule of law and the damage they did/would be willing to do for their own advantage. If they are willing to manipulate and deceive without limit and lack any moral compass then I don't see much difference to an actual ruler by force. Trump especially would be happy to become one.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,005
|
Post by neilj on Jan 3, 2024 11:01:19 GMT
Peter Kellner's opinion re the next election. Worth reading it all, but his conclusion is 'Just now, Keir Starmer looks set to become the next prime minister, probably with a majority, but not a three-figure landslide' Personally I think a Labour landslide has been underpriced for some time. Not saying it will happen, but we shouldn't be surprised if it does www.theneweuropean.co.uk/decoding-britains-pre-election-polls/
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 11:20:56 GMT
I've reflected on what I said about and to Graham last night, as well as what others have said to him and his replies to us, and after this general comment, I will say no more on the subject. Anyway, I doubt anything I or others say will change either Graham's mind or the nature of his posting. Only Mark can insist on the latter and, assuming he's happy, Graham is perfectly entitled to continue posting as he does. It's not for me to censor or ban him. My entitlement only extends to expressing an opinion on what he sometimes says. I don't intend to flog any more dead horses. My reflection is a general one and applies to political discussion in the round. It's about how an obsessive dislike, maybe even an irrational one too, can seep into almost every opinion or view expressed. If you loathe and detest Tony Blair, for example, as Graham clearly does, then this disfigures and slants, de facto, your view of decades of government. A detestation of the man and all his works. No nuance or objectivity. I've seen this apply to Starmer on these pages too, maybe Clegg, Thatcher and Johnson as well. There are probably other hate figures I've missed. We all have political biases, and likes and dislikes too, but once loathing and detestation enters the fray the road to wanting someone dead is a short one. Nazi metaphors too. I may be an exception to a rule, and I'm aware this forum is a political hothouse, unrepresentative of how the vast majority of our fellow citizens approach politics, but I can cheerfully say that I can't think of a democratic politician I personally hate. Disapprove of, yes, hold disdain towards, yes, but not hate. I don't think I even hate Trump or Le Pen. To quote a well known advertising line; if the hate starts, stop. People such as John Tyndall , Martin Webster, Nick Griffin, Colin Jordan, Archibald Ramsay, John Lee Hamilton and Oswald Moseley were democratic politicians in that they stood for election and invited people to vote for them. Some were actually elected. The mere fact of engaging in the democratic process surely does not mean that such people cannot be despised! Others would say the same about Enoch Powell, George Galloway or Thatcher. I despise Blair because of his complicity in the war crimes arising from the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the way that western leaders have used their power and influence - including UN vetos - to ensure that he - and Bush - were never charged or brought to trial. The legal princples eloquently set out in the Nuremburg Trial of 1945/46 have not been adhered to - and that failure shames the Western world and highlights its hypocrisy.
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 3, 2024 11:23:40 GMT
However, more importantly, and I know I keep going on about this, but you need two wings to be able to fly. The stifling of one wing of the party creates two problems: firstly, frustration and discontent with a significant group of supporters and activists; secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the internal private discussion of policy in cabinet becomes groupthink. The most effective policies of any government have been subject to debate, and honed to sharpness in that debate. This stifling is, I fear, likely to mean, in these volatile political times, that KS could be leading a single term administration, that would be disastrous! As an outsider to Labour Party politics, I saw it as the Left wing being dominant under Miliband and, especially, Corbyn. So Labour has had almost a decade of trying to fly on one wing and half a decade of trying to fly on the other. In that sense, Blair/Brown was nearly ideal with the former business-friendly and the latter keeping the views of the Left in the conversation. It was that same left-wing dominance at the beginning of the 1980s that meant that Thatcherism was able to take hold because the Left could not accept the views of Roy Jenkins in particular. As someone whose first political party was the SDP and who had direct experience of the years after the merger I've seen things in the LibDems that would not have been out of place in the Labour party; some old Liberals hated the old SDP only a little less than they hated Labour. On the other hand , David Steel was well to the left of David Owen and the SDP leaders!
|
|
|
Post by johntel on Jan 3, 2024 11:32:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 3, 2024 11:40:19 GMT
ENEMIES OF THE PEOPLE It would improve my a.m. grumpiness if I woke up to find that Putin or Orban or Trump or some other enemy of the people had dropped dead. But I don't want them assasinated: (a) It might make things worse. Will killing Arouri make things better? It leads to miscarriages of justice. Eg,, Birmingham Four, supposed killer of Jill Dando etc. (b) It would encourage assasination as a political "tool". How many dissidents have been killed by orders of dictators. (In the USA, incidentally, the most endangered occupation seems to be Rapper.) (c) Most politicioans are so thick-skinned -- it goes with the job -- the bullets would probably bounce off and injure someone decent.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 3, 2024 12:06:56 GMT
It's not primarily an insult it's an observation based on his words and behaviour , I've posted similar comments about the rapist traitor and I stand by them. The hypocrisy of someone who is totally obsessed with insulting individual members of the minority party in a coalition over a decade ago is quite notable as well.
|
|
|
Post by pete on Jan 3, 2024 12:22:14 GMT
colin "O'Brien says that the database for all migrant visas is poor, the Home Office has no proper records and abuse is rife." I didn't quote the whole thing to save space but it is indeed a shocking situation. The last thing the country needs is a constant massive influx of low-paid or economically inactive people. Apart from anything else oversupply of labour will automatically depress wages, especially for the low-paid. They're only 'economically inactive' due to the Gov not letting them work. Oh! The old I give a crap about 'the low-paid' argument...until some tells me I should be paid less and they more. Until they strike, etc etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 12:29:45 GMT
robbiealive“ (In the USA, incidentally, the most endangered occupation seems to be Rapper.) “ Seems entirely appropriate.
|
|
pjw1961
Member
Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
Posts: 8,384
|
Post by pjw1961 on Jan 3, 2024 12:30:26 GMT
Peter Kellner's opinion re the next election. Worth reading it all, but his conclusion is 'Just now, Keir Starmer looks set to become the next prime minister, probably with a majority, but not a three-figure landslide' Personally I think a Labour landslide has been underpriced for some time. Not saying it will happen, but we shouldn't be surprised if it does www.theneweuropean.co.uk/decoding-britains-pre-election-polls/Just for fun, I've copied Kellner's continued belief in UNS, because I know some on here strongly disagree. My own doubts about the MRP Labour landslide predictions are not based on UNS, but on the great weakness of Labour organisation outside cities and towns and on Labour's seat targeting policy. "2. Beware predictions of a huge Labour landslide. We have been frequently told that Labour is on course for majorities of 200-plus, beating the 1997 figure of 179. These assumptions came from a type of survey that uses the catchily named “multilevel regression with post-stratification” (MRP) process. Here’s the problem. MRP assumes that the higher the local support for the Tories, the more votes they will lose. This means that the swings to Labour will be well above the national average wherever the Tories seem to have comfortable majorities. As a result, MRP predicts that many Tory MPs that won 60-70% of the vote in 2019 will be defeated. Historically, swings between Labour and Conservative have never behaved like that. Of course, individual seats vary; but in election after election, swings in safe seats have been much the same as in marginal seats. MRP assumes that the next general election will overturn more than seven decades of political theory. It’s a brave assumption."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 3, 2024 12:31:04 GMT
It's not primarily an insult it's an observation based on his words and behaviour , I've posted similar comments about the rapist traitor and I stand by them. The hypocrisy of someone who is totally obsessed with insulting individual members of the minority party in a coalition over a decade ago is quite notable as well. Not surprised that you find watching an animal hurt itself amusing.
|
|