neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 21, 2024 21:39:11 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 21, 2024 21:39:25 GMT
Amazingly they did it post-war despite a war-ravaged economy. (Before the Social Democrats helped the more NeoLiberal unravel it…) Perhaps it helped that many women werent allowed to work? Thereby slashing the size of the workforce? Nowadays we have fewer women doing the washing by hand, and more running an office. There are many more people nowadays to be found good jobs. Yes, more jobs required these days although growing the workforce can also in turn help grow the economy. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 21, 2024 21:43:23 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 21, 2024 21:50:00 GMT
Just watched a follow up discussion to this revelation from a Sky News investigation. news.sky.com/story/the-bizarre-story-of-a-fake-carer-and-what-it-says-about-the-uks-care-industry-13257237In summary there is a part of the Care at Home provision which is unregulated by CQC. The Government doesn't seem to know this. The regulated providers will have to pay the increased employment costs loaded by the government. 80% of their client base is LAs who will not increase their fees. There is the risk of a drift from regulated to unregulated providers putting vulnerable clients at risk. Is this a problem that has occurred in the last 4 months rather than the previous 14 years? let us know if the previous Govt was all over the Problem. Of course it pre-dates this government. It goes back a long way, But Labour is in charge now and has raised the taxes to fix it. I must say that failing to understand what CQC does and does not regulate is not an encouraging start. |
|
|
|
Post by colin on Nov 21, 2024 21:52:59 GMT
Thought I would bring some early Christmas cheer, get a bit of extra value out of the Telegraph and share the top few recommendations for mince pies. Top with 5 stars is… Tesco Finest Luxurious Fruity Mince Pies£3.50 for four at Tesco Review Dark cookie-like pastry with a delicate pressed design. Very crumbly – you’d need a plate or a happy dog. Filling looks good with varied fruit and not too sweet. Tastes very appley with a bit of crunch from the sugar on the top. A good pie, if a tad unconventional. then the following have four stars: M&S Classic Mince Pies£2.75 for six (82.3p per 100g) at M&S and Ocado Review The lid is not quite straight and the tiny holly leaves look oddly out of proportion but otherwise a nice-looking brown pie. Decent pastry with a brown butter flavour and the filling isn’t too sweet, with a warm spice aftertaste. Waitrose No 1 Brown Butter Mince Pies with Cognac£4 for six at Waitrose Review A restrained pie with no design at all. The centre has sunk and the browning is uneven, making it look homemade. Well filled with different coloured fruits and lots of spice. The pastry is buttery with the faint flavour of almond extract. A bit too sweet. Sainsbury’s Mince Pies£1.70 for six (53p per 100g) at Sainsbury's Review Nice-looking pie with a simple tree on the lid and a homemade look. Homogenous dark brown filling that tastes of black treacle, so you’d have to be up for that. Rather powdery pastry but it has a good flavour. Not too sweet. Exceptional by Asda 4 Whisky, Fig & Spiced Honey Mince Pies£2.50 for four (£1.25 per 100g) at Asda Review Like the love child of a florentine and a mince pie. Tastes surprisingly wholesome with lots of nuts and not too sweet. The pastry is a bit leaden though. (Sainsbury’s seem the best value) THese prices are pre NIC increase ? |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 21, 2024 21:55:56 GMT
Do you have a view on that? Do you think he is likely to assist in bringing well paid jobs back for the workers of the USA, or is he all about weakening the power of Elected Governments so that multi-Billionaires like him are unconstrained. What's Musk's view on 'Pulling the ladder up'?. Musk is a bully and under him X propagates far right hatred and racism. As Brazil has shown the only thing to do with bullies is to stand up to them and they then back down 'Brazil lifts ban on Musk's X after it pays $5m fine' www.bbc.com/news/articles/c5y06vzk3yjoBrazil's Supreme Court has said it is lifting a ban on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. In his decision, Justice Alexandre de Moraes said that he authorised the "immediate return" of X's activities in the country after it paid hefty fines and blocked accounts accused of spreading misinformation' |
|
|
|
Post by c-a-r-f-r-e-w on Nov 21, 2024 21:57:46 GMT
Thought I would bring some early Christmas cheer, get a bit of extra value out of the Telegraph and share the top few recommendations for mince pies. Top with 5 stars is… Tesco Finest Luxurious Fruity Mince Pies£3.50 for four at Tesco Review Dark cookie-like pastry with a delicate pressed design. Very crumbly – you’d need a plate or a happy dog. Filling looks good with varied fruit and not too sweet. Tastes very appley with a bit of crunch from the sugar on the top. A good pie, if a tad unconventional. then the following have four stars: M&S Classic Mince Pies£2.75 for six (82.3p per 100g) at M&S and Ocado Review The lid is not quite straight and the tiny holly leaves look oddly out of proportion but otherwise a nice-looking brown pie. Decent pastry with a brown butter flavour and the filling isn’t too sweet, with a warm spice aftertaste. Waitrose No 1 Brown Butter Mince Pies with Cognac£4 for six at Waitrose Review A restrained pie with no design at all. The centre has sunk and the browning is uneven, making it look homemade. Well filled with different coloured fruits and lots of spice. The pastry is buttery with the faint flavour of almond extract. A bit too sweet. Sainsbury’s Mince Pies£1.70 for six (53p per 100g) at Sainsbury's Review Nice-looking pie with a simple tree on the lid and a homemade look. Homogenous dark brown filling that tastes of black treacle, so you’d have to be up for that. Rather powdery pastry but it has a good flavour. Not too sweet. Exceptional by Asda 4 Whisky, Fig & Spiced Honey Mince Pies£2.50 for four (£1.25 per 100g) at Asda Review Like the love child of a florentine and a mince pie. Tastes surprisingly wholesome with lots of nuts and not too sweet. The pastry is a bit leaden though. (Sainsbury’s seem the best value) THese prices are pre NIC increase ? I dunno Col, or whether they have IHT implications. (Am looking forward to trying the Whisky, Fig & Spiced Honey Mince Pies) |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 21, 2024 22:30:29 GMT
Interesting analysis from Election Maps Who benefits (in net terms) when Reform stand candidates in Council By-Elections? Gainers: RFM: +13.1% LAB: +1.8% LDM: +1.1% PLC: +0.3% Losers: CON: -6.4% OTH: -5.2% SNP: -2.9% GRN: -1.8% Be really interesting to see how that shapes up in the different types of seat - safe CON, safe LAB, CON/LAB, CON/LD etc. I've not looked at any data on this but my instinct would be that both LAB and CON probably do a heck of a lot worse than those numbers when RefUK pop up in their safer seats? How you'd account for the differences in which parties or Independents even stand each time would be a big challenge too - it'd be tempting to read those stats as saying RefUK draw significant support from Independents, which also makes intuitive sense. But it could also be reflecting that Independents are just less likely to run when there are more candidates from whatever national parties, or that RefUK are more likely to get a run together somewhere that an Independent candidate has priorly demonstrated scope for an anti-establishment vote. Really really messy thing to try to average. |
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Nov 21, 2024 22:37:05 GMT
You may be right about that. But he could still survive in government if the Tories cant find a more appealing alternative. And the jury is still out on that ! Meanwhile i just hope they both know what they are doing. I'm losing faith in that rapidly. I actually do not see the Tories as the main threat here for quite a few years ahead. I think Labour have directional challenges from all sides at present but I agree Reform is going to be a huge issue for them (assuming that's what you meant). It's no longer going to be a traditional Lab/Con swing but multiple different kinds of swings and Reform have a target Lab demographic that might never vote Tory but might vote Reform. On Current polling Reform could grab 10 or more Lab seats like the exit poll expected them to., that's without taking into account Lab lost votes to Reform getting a Tory through the middle and a likely small uptick in the Tory vote anyway. One of their other problems could be in Scotland as we see from that Survation Scotland poll. Only one poll but you can see the effect when SNP stayed static but Labour fell. A lot of seats in Scotland are on thin margins and unpredictable who wins seats on the basis of left/right and unionist/indie battles, but 30 seats for Labour to lose in Scotland whoever wins them and SNP being ahead of Lab is one of the biggies in terms of seat changes. LD, Greens and independents will find seats harder to win but if the Labour vote does drop to those levels then their chances get better. Streeting is on a tiny majority and assuming the independent stands again and Labour loses vote share (which wouldn't be unexpected in a second term election challenge) then the indie picks it up. Just some Tory lent votes going back to Tory and Lab voters moving to will not vote will be a problem for Labour in those types of seats. Just a 2% vote swing loses Labour 40 seats and there are plenty more seats where a challenger doesn't necessarily need to put on any more votes if Labour drop: www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labourWe're only talking about circa 4,000 votes (2,000) changing hands to take Labour to defence 100 on that list and that loses them their majority. As you say people don't seem to be noticing the rapid decline in the Lab vote from an already low level so early in a parliament and I don't think their coalition that won them the last election is a very firm base as they took a lot of potentially one time Tory votes. Also losing such a vital vote share to the Greens that I don't think will be coming back to them easily. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 21, 2024 22:46:23 GMT
Suspected paedophile and human trafficker will not be the US Attorney General It's difficult to believe I had to even write that www.politico.eu/article/uk-nigel-farage-ukraine-cant-win-war-russia/Former Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., on Thursday announced that he would withdraw his name from consideration to be President-elect Donald Trump's attorney general. As you and other long-standing posters will know, my track record at predictions is dreadful. But I'm having that one! :-) It's clear that Republican Senators told him they weren't going to confirm him, so his only option to try to resume his career in the short-term would be to try to walk back having told, in writing, both the Speaker of the House and the Governor of Florida that he did not intend to accept his election victory and be sworn into the new Congress. Hard to see even a guy without serious criminal accusations managing to thread that needle. Whether the Senators have dispatched him because of the accusations or as retribution for all the damage and distraction he inflicted with those endless Speaker elections... different Senators probably with different motivations. But as steve has pointed out before, this isn't merely someone who is politically risky and/or egregiously unqualified, this is someone who is actively loathed by many Congressional Republicans. So who really knows, or indeed cares - there are some people so malignant that the whole system is a little bit better without them, whatever your politics. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 21, 2024 23:01:44 GMT
Nickpoole He was voted in by a massive majority of the membership and would probably win again if his name was put forward. Whilst it’s true the Labour membership voted for him the actual Labour MP’s weren’t that impressed Corbyn receiving the lowest support of any previous Labour leader. And it’s true that in 2017 he forced the Tories into a coalition in 2017 having survived a move by Labour MP’s to oust him in 2016. By 2019 the public had learnt much more of Corbyn and his half baked left wing socialist student politics and made the perfectly reasoned choice to tell the Labour Party exactly what the more saner voices amongst Labour MP’s had been saying for a couple of years that Corbyn was completely out of touch with the real world and hand Labour there biggest defeat since 1935. Some revisionists here. Politics probably from 2010 to 2023 was dominated by brexit, or at the start euroscepticism. Con empasised this to grab the UKIP vote, without which they would not have won any of the elections in that period. In 2017 Corbyn managed to gather the remain vote and thereby had his moment of near success. By 2019 it was clear labour was not the saviour of those who wanted to remain, while con under Johnson had managed to reform the coalition to leave (after May nearly destroyed it, as I guess you could argue was her intent being a remainer herself). The irony being that remainers were leading the leave party, while a probable leaver was leading the remain party. Such is politics. But it had bugger all to do with socialism, unless you mean leave promised everyone in the Uk would get more money in a grand redistribution from the EU if we left. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 21, 2024 23:15:05 GMT
Nickpoole He was voted in by a massive majority of the membership and would probably win again if his name was put forward. Whilst it’s true the Labour membership voted for him the actual Labour MP’s weren’t that impressed Corbyn receiving the lowest support of any previous Labour leader. And it’s true that in 2017 he forced the Tories into a coalition in 2017 having survived a move by Labour MP’s to oust him in 2016. By 2019 the public had learnt much more of Corbyn and his half baked left wing socialist student politics and made the perfectly reasoned choice to tell the Labour Party exactly what the more saner voices amongst Labour MP’s had been saying for a couple of years that Corbyn was completely out of touch with the real world and hand Labour there biggest defeat since 1935. Some revisionists here. Politics probably from 2010 to 2013 was dominated by brexit, or at the start euroscepticism. Con empasised this to grab the UKIP vote, without which they would not have won any of the elections in that period. In 2017 Corbyn managed to gather the remain vote and thereby had his moment of near success. By 2019 it was clear labour was not the saviour of those who wanted to remain, while con under Johnson had managed to reform the coalition to leave (after May nearly destroyed it, as I guess you could argue was her intent being a remainer herself). The irony being that remainers were leading the leave party, while a probable leaver was leading the remain party. Such is politics. But it had bugger all to do with socialism, unless you mean leave promised everyone in the Uk would get more money in a grand redistribution from the EU if we left. 2005 GE - UKIP 2.2% 2010 GE - UKIP 3.1% 2015 GE - UKIP 12.6% Seems hard to overstate CON's success at grabbing that particular vote. But totes agree with you that revisionists may be at work... |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 22, 2024 0:13:53 GMT
Hiya everyone! So observing what has been going on, looks like wealthy people and big business really don't like being taxed! But then again who does. The difference is, unlike the groups that were hit by austerity, they have a lot of friends in the media and get a largely sympathetic coverage.
Most of the people/groups Labour are targeting don't by and large vote Labour.
Hiya lululemonmustdobetter! I agree with a lot of what you wrote, but I think the exception to it is the NIC increase - by disproportionately targeting businesses that employ a lot of low-paid and/or part-time staff they are putting a much larger number of people in the frame than with niche areas like farming or private schools. There are going to be a significant number of Labour voters who have struggled with austerity and particularly with the cost of living increases in recent years, and who are now being told by their managers that next year's pay review is cancelled because the government took all the money for it, and in many cases that will be entirely accurate and honest. Of course you're right that pretty much every group or interest would rather that other groups or interests got any extra taxes that are needed. But I think you've also probably strayed onto why they're making this huge misjudgement - I suspect their focus groups told them that people overwhelmingly agree that any tax increases should be paid by "business" rather than "workers", and then they've looked at what are the quickest, most direct and least avoidable ways of getting more money from "business" and have come up with this. I suspect what they're going to find is that when people said they wanted "business" to pay, they meant "big business" as you phrased it, and in the sense of companies that make huge profits or employ lots of rich staff. Whereas for this the more rich staff you have the less it hurts you, and whether you make a large profit or indeed any profit at all is irrelevant to the bill you get. And unlike the farmers and private schoolers with their ready advocates in the media, it's actually taken quite a while for the sense of how regressive this really is to start to build. But I think it's going to keep building, especially as it starts to impact people's pay. |
|
|
|
Post by norbold on Nov 22, 2024 0:29:50 GMT
As you and other long-standing posters will know, my track record at predictions is dreadful. But I'm having that one! :-) It's clear that Republican Senators told him they weren't going to confirm him, so his only option to try to resume his career in the short-term would be to try to walk back having told, in writing, both the Speaker of the House and the Governor of Florida that he did not intend to accept his election victory and be sworn into the new Congress. Hard to see even a guy without serious criminal accusations managing to thread that needle. Whether the Senators have dispatched him because of the accusations or as retribution for all the damage and distraction he inflicted with those endless Speaker elections... different Senators probably with different motivations. But as steve has pointed out before, this isn't merely someone who is politically risky and/or egregiously unqualified, this is someone who is actively loathed by many Congressional Republicans. So who really knows, or indeed cares - there are some people so malignant that the whole system is a little bit better without them, whatever your politics. Ah, but Trump loved him. |
|
|
|
Post by eor on Nov 22, 2024 0:42:11 GMT
As you and other long-standing posters will know, my track record at predictions is dreadful. But I'm having that one! :-) It's clear that Republican Senators told him they weren't going to confirm him, so his only option to try to resume his career in the short-term would be to try to walk back having told, in writing, both the Speaker of the House and the Governor of Florida that he did not intend to accept his election victory and be sworn into the new Congress. Hard to see even a guy without serious criminal accusations managing to thread that needle. Whether the Senators have dispatched him because of the accusations or as retribution for all the damage and distraction he inflicted with those endless Speaker elections... different Senators probably with different motivations. But as steve has pointed out before, this isn't merely someone who is politically risky and/or egregiously unqualified, this is someone who is actively loathed by many Congressional Republicans. So who really knows, or indeed cares - there are some people so malignant that the whole system is a little bit better without them, whatever your politics. Ah, but Trump loved him. I don't buy that actually - if Trump cared that much he wouldn't have let the Senate jettison him so quickly. For a guy who loves power above all, to publicly accept straight away that the Senate are really who chooses his nominees would be a very difficult pill. I suspect it was more that he'd promised Gaetz a Cabinet appointment in return for whatever House shenanigans had benefited Trump's quest for the nomination, but now is quite happy to be ridded of him and of that obligation. We'll never really know tho. |
|
|
|
Post by guymonde on Nov 22, 2024 1:42:39 GMT
I actually do not see the Tories as the main threat here for quite a few years ahead. I think Labour have directional challenges from all sides at present but I agree Reform is going to be a huge issue for them (assuming that's what you meant). It's no longer going to be a traditional Lab/Con swing but multiple different kinds of swings and Reform have a target Lab demographic that might never vote Tory but might vote Reform. On Current polling Reform could grab 10 or more Lab seats like the exit poll expected them to., that's without taking into account Lab lost votes to Reform getting a Tory through the middle and a likely small uptick in the Tory vote anyway. One of their other problems could be in Scotland as we see from that Survation Scotland poll. Only one poll but you can see the effect when SNP stayed static but Labour fell. A lot of seats in Scotland are on thin margins and unpredictable who wins seats on the basis of left/right and unionist/indie battles, but 30 seats for Labour to lose in Scotland whoever wins them and SNP being ahead of Lab is one of the biggies in terms of seat changes. LD, Greens and independents will find seats harder to win but if the Labour vote does drop to those levels then their chances get better. Streeting is on a tiny majority and assuming the independent stands again and Labour loses vote share (which wouldn't be unexpected in a second term election challenge) then the indie picks it up. Just some Tory lent votes going back to Tory and Lab voters moving to will not vote will be a problem for Labour in those types of seats. Just a 2% vote swing loses Labour 40 seats and there are plenty more seats where a challenger doesn't necessarily need to put on any more votes if Labour drop: www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/defence/labourWe're only talking about circa 4,000 votes (2,000) changing hands to take Labour to defence 100 on that list and that loses them their majority. As you say people don't seem to be noticing the rapid decline in the Lab vote from an already low level so early in a parliament and I don't think their coalition that won them the last election is a very firm base as they took a lot of potentially one time Tory votes. Also losing such a vital vote share to the Greens that I don't think will be coming back to them easily. Never thought the 'landslide' evidences enthusiasm for Labour. Not surprised the polls (and by-elections) look quite bad for Labour. But I think this is a time to not worry much about polls and concentrate on fixing things. I think the budget was a decent start, though some bits make little sense and I would have preferred a more radical approach. But the proof of the pudding is how life feels for ordinary people. That has been pretty awful since 2008 and that is an opportunity. Whether there is any competence in the LP to communicate it is another matter. My impression is that Biden failed miserably on that and I don't see much in Labour that is better (though KS is not likely to lose his marbles). One thing that infuriated me after 2010 was that the Liam Byrne nonsense was never challenged and I don't think the LP has a clue how to do better. Need some demagogue behaviour. |
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,717
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Nov 22, 2024 6:16:37 GMT
Former Attorney General of the state of Florida. and another of trump's numerous personal lawyers, Pam Bondi,the maniac's new pick as attorney General.
Unlike Gaetz she at least is a real lawyer.
But she's chosen to use her occupation to issue a series of lies about the criticism of trump and spouted his same complete cobblers over the 2020 general election.
Bondi is picked solely for her loyalty to the rapist.
Bondi will barring any unknown skeletons in the closet ( always a possibility with these maga lunatics) have no issues with a Senate hearing.
Another turd floats to the top of the cesspit
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:26:54 GMT
eor"There are going to be a significant number of Labour voters who have struggled with austerity and particularly with the cost of living increases in recent years, and who are now being told by their managers that next year's pay review is cancelled because the government took all the money for it, and in many cases that will be entirely accurate and honest" The lowest paid workers will get a significantly above inflation increase thanks to the big increase in the minimum wage. I also believe with a relatively low unemployment rate firms will want to maintain pay differentials atleast to a couple of rungs above that if they want to keep their staff I also think there will be above inflation increases in minimum wage for the next 4 years My prediction is that average wages will increase in real terms and the lowest earners will benefit the most This will be in stark contrast to the tory years, especially for public sector workers, who on average were worse off in real terms after 14 years of a tory Government Time will tell of course
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:30:04 GMT
Trump does seem to have an attraction to this tye, birds of a feather I suppose www.cnn.com/2024/11/21/politics/pete-hegseth-police-report-defense-secretary-trump/index.htmlPolice report reveals new details from sexual assault allegation against Trump’s defense secretary nominee A California woman told police that Trump Cabinet pick Pete Hegseth physically blocked her from leaving a hotel room, took her phone, and then sexually assaulted her even though she “remembered saying ‘no’ a lot,”... Hegseth was not charged with a crime in connection with the allegation. His attorney has acknowledged that Hegseth later entered into a settlement agreement with his accuser that included an undisclosed monetary payment and a confidentiality clause' |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:36:06 GMT
Maryhill (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
🌹 LAB: 35.9% (+1.9)
🎗️ SNP: 29.2% (-12.9)
➡️ RFM: 12.7% (New)
🌍 GRN: 12.1% (-0.2)
🔷 ALBA: 4.2% (New)
🌳 CON: 3.2% (-5.0)
🔶 LDM: 2.7% (+0.3)
Labour HOLD* - Elected Stage 7.
Changes w/ 2022.
Drumchapel & Anniesland (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
🌹 LAB: 34.3% (-3.8)
🎗️ SNP: 26.3% (-11.6)
➡️ RFM: 12.8% (New)
🙋 IND: 9.4% (+4.2)
🌍 GRN: 8.3% (+2.3)
🌳 CON: 5.8% (-3.7)
🔶 LDM: 2.9% (+1.3)
Labour HOLD - Elected Stage 7.
Changes w/ 2022.
Election Maps UK @electionmaps.uk
·
6h
North East (Glasgow) Council By-Election Result [1st Prefs]:
🌹 LAB: 34.3% (-9.7)
🎗️ SNP: 32.2% (-10.4)
➡️ RFM: 18.3% (New)
🌳 CON: 5.4% (-3.3)
🌍 GRN: 4.2% (+1.2)
🧑🔧 TUSC: 3.7% (+2.5)
🔶 LDM: 2.0% (New)
Labour HOLD - Elected Stage 7.
Changes w/ 2022.
Election Maps UK @electionmaps.uk
·
6h
Blackmoor Vale (Somerset) Council By-Election Result:
🌳 CON: 57.4 (+13.1)
🔶 LDM: 36.6% (-19.1)
🌍 GRN: 4.4% (New)
🌹 LAB: 1.6% (New)
Conservative GAIN from Liberal Democrat.
Changes w/ 2022.
Harbourside & Town (Gosport) Council By-Election Result:
🌳 CON: 48.5% (+10.6)
🌹 LAB: 27.8% (-12.8)
🔶 LDM: 11.8% (+3.4)
➡️ RFM: 9.3% (New)
🙋 IND: 1.4% (New)
🏰 HER: 1.2% (New)
No IND (-9.3) or GRN (-3.8) as previous.
Conservative GAIN from Labour.
Changes w/ 2024.
Election Maps UK @electionmaps.uk
·
7h
Litherland (Sefton) Council By-Election Result:
🌹 LAB: 43.7% (-30.3)
🌍 GRN: 34.0% (+27.1)
➡️ RFM: 12.4% (New)
🌳 CON: 4.2% (-0.6)
⚙️ WPB: 3.5% (New)
🧑🔧 TUSC: 2.2% (New)
No IND (-12.1) or LDM (-2.3) as previous.
Labour HOLD.
Changes w/ 2024.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:36:47 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 29% (+1)
CON: 27% (=)
RFM: 17% (=)
LDM: 12% (-1)
GRN: 7% (=)
SNP: 2% (=)
Via Techne UK, 20-21 Nov.
Changes w/ 13-14 Nov.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,717
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Nov 22, 2024 6:43:37 GMT
So let's focus on The maniac's pick as defence Secretary Pete Hegseth a totally unsuitable former national guard Major and fox
news host.
While in this role he nearly killed someone with an axe while drunk.
He is an extreme christofascist white supremacist,misogynist and to no one's surprise at all it transpires he's another sexual predator,
"A woman told police that she was sexually assaulted in 2017 by Pete Hegseth after he took her phone, blocked the door to a California hotel room and refused to let her leave, according to a detailed investigative report made public late on Wednesday.
Hegseth, a Fox News personality and Donald Trump’s nominee to be defense secretary, told police at the time that the encounter had been consensual and denied any wrongdoing, the report said.
News of the allegations surfaced last week when local officials released a brief statement confirming that a woman had accused Hegseth of sexual assault in October 2017 after he had spoken at a Republican women’s event in Monterey."
While Hesgeth denied the allegation of rape he subsequently paid the individual an undisclosed amount of money and agreed a non disclosure agreement.
The obvious actions of an innocent man.
"The 22-page police report was released in response to a public records request and offers the first detailed account of what the woman alleged to have transpired – one that is at odds with Hegseth’s version of events. The report cited police interviews with the alleged victim, a nurse who treated her, a hotel staffer, another woman at the event and Hegseth.
So a television personality ,a liar and a rapist.
Remind you of anyone who might have nominated him.
It's possible that Senate republicans might not select Hegseth but having dodged the bullet of having to oppose the dear leader's pick as attorney general They may well show their normal spineless supplicancy.
Another great pick a WWF official as Education Secretary , sadly it isn't Hulk Hogan!
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:46:42 GMT
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 6:50:31 GMT
Not sure you would find many against lower energy costs and rents, increasing productivity reducing welfare costs etc - but its easier said than done. How would you do it? Well, re housing, market forces would have solved this. The bottleneck was a refusal by government to grant sufficient planning consents. The whole building industry has changed because there were no consents to build, so the companies who could have done this obviously all disappeared. Small one-off builders have almost entirely disappeared, but the big companies too have shrunk. There has been no competition on price to build cheaply, so its unsurprising building costs have also soared. What Thatcher did was largely end building by the state, but without replacing this be private sector (as she promised). The private sector is wholly content to let their profit margin per house soar. Obviously, returning to the former system where councils purchased land at agricultural values and commissioned their own building is likely to be cheaper than the private sector, but even the private sector unrestricted would have built many more homes. Our energy system was also privatised, with the result companies frst priority is to make as much money as possible, certainly not supply cheap energy, or even ensure continuity of energy supply. As I understand it, renewables energy is actually now cheap, and so the more we have of this then the cheaper the overall supply becomes. But the last government put the brakes on this, although the previous labour one was still also working on a private sector model. Even the French have a state owned generating company, there was nothing at all preventing us doing so even while an EU member. But british governments since Thatcher have believed in letting the market maximise its profits. Productivity, well we have had a government cheap labour policy again since Thatcher, which means labour is cheaper than mechanisation and so productivity stays low. Why buy machines if labour is cheap? BUt also, globalisation works against us: while theoretically it may maximise net productivity worldwide, as a system there are winners and losers, and we have shifted to being a loser. Welfare: tricky one, as a society we believe in giving more and more support to the elderly and infirm. Obviously thats a diminishing return with more and more cost for less and less extra lifetime. Putin is happy to throw young lives into the war against Ukraine, we are desperately trying to keep the old alive a little longer. [/font][/quote] However if you consider the pre war period and history in general, massive wealth disaparity was more the norm. Its simple, the rich work hard at staying rich, of course they do. As a society we even value that trait. It doesnt matter to them that concentrating wealth in their hands overall harms society. They have become more subtle at persuading the poor to accept this. |
|
|
|
Post by jib on Nov 22, 2024 6:58:10 GMT
Westminster Voting Intention: LAB: 29% (+1) CON: 27% (=) RFM: 17% (=) LDM: 12% (-1) GRN: 7% (=) SNP: 2% (=) Via Techne UK, 20-21 Nov. Changes w/ 13-14 Nov. Labour can be reasonably pleased with that, particularly if it's based on adjustment after the pollsters were well out in July. I guess not many agriculturalists vote Labour. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 6:58:16 GMT
Stinks more than month old fish...still those Taylor Swift tickets eh 'Why did the UK Government agree to sell the ghost station to an oligarch already suspected of money laundering for the Russian underworld? Why did senior Conservative Party figures accept large donations from such a man? Why hasn’t there been a full official inquiry?' bylinetimes.com/2020/02/25/underground-russian-influence-johnson-and-the-ghost-station/A lawsuit by former Dragon’s Den star and Brighton businessman Ajit Chambers – who claimed that Boris Johnson “stole” his project to reopen 26 “ghost stations” as tourist attractions – also reveals how a pro-Putin Ukrainian oligarch managed to get his hands on a major public asset, even though he was under a global FBI indictment at the time. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 7:00:18 GMT
As it is I think the Labour policy to streamline planning permission and if necessary firce through more house building, is a good one. But while we have a chronic Labour shortage in the country we aren't going to be able to build many millions To mention a couple of industries in the news recently, if we close half the hospitality outlets it will free up labour for building work, plus make the remaining outlets profitable and contributing more in tax revenue. While if we discourage family farms, it will create more efficient larger farms with smaller labour input, freeing up people already accustomed to outdoor work. The NHS keeps saying AI offers significnt scope to automate medicine and reduce bottlenecks of expert human input. But the NHS needs to how it can reduce its labour input, which for example includes people taking a day off work because the NHS requires them to transport their loved ones 50 miles to the hospital which will treat them. Cost savings for the NHS, but at a labour cost to the general economy. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 7:06:30 GMT
Reading the report, they weren't that slow actually. Interestingly, I don't recall colin being quite so outspokingly concerned about the recent report about child abuse in the Church of England and its continuing privileged position in the UK. I wonder whether Millard has been questioning grants going to Christian youth groups given the long history of child abuse and tolerance of paedophilia in so many of its intitututions? A family member is a parish priest. Opinion is that there are more bishops who knew.Parishoners are questioning the point of parish safeguarding procedures. CoE may be very badly affected by this as an institution. I hope so personally-it follows the BBC, The Catholic Church, The Post Office and many other institutions whose first instinct in such cases is to protect the Institution and not the victims. They are all the same. And every time it comes down to inadequate accountability and opaque procedures for senior appointments. I must have missed your criticism of Rennie. Were the Christian Youth Groups you refer to the subject of offences and/or prosecutions ? The common thread in every child abuse case is secrecy. Without this the abuse could never have happened in the first place. The irony is that such is harder to do today, because in general society has more openness about such matters. And yet we have moved in the opposite direction, criminalising 16 and 17 year olds once again for having sex, taking pictures, and it seems we may soon be criminalising them further by forbidding them phones or access to social media. When they disobey all these rules, as they obviously will, it immediately places them on the wrong side of the law or authority, and therefore compels them to accept abuse rather than report it. |
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 10,512
|
Post by Danny on Nov 22, 2024 7:10:57 GMT
lens - Even that is one thing, but you then seem to have been calling them "thick as mince" for not predicting the future!!" No I'm not. I'm just wondering as to the mentality of a couple of 90+ year olds hanging on to ownership of a family farm that has been in the family for three generations before them, when there are two further generations waiting behind them to inherit this treasured asset and carry on the family tradition. It's just bonkers. Anyone with half a brain could have predicted that a future possible change in tax laws left them very vulnerable (if that is actually the case) and I cannot see a single sensible reason why a 93/96 year old couple need to hold on to sole ownership of such a large asset. Sure its a soap opera, but this sort of issues has been explored in eg 'The Archers' for decades. Where new blood arrives helping to bring farm practices up to date with modern best practice as the young go off to college. All this raises the question whether government policy should be expressly directed at encouraging the old to hand on farms no later than national retirment age. |
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,499
|
Post by neilj on Nov 22, 2024 7:16:44 GMT
Further thoughts on farm inheritance tax
I've written a lot about why it will only effect the largest farms and referenced independent expert analysis to support that
However it's what happens in the real world that counts. My view it will be like the furore over the expansion of ULEZ. Alot was made of the fact that Labour narrowly failed to gain a safe tory seat because of the fear of ULEZ expansion. But when it came in the vast majority of people realised they weren't effected and it went away as an electoral election
I think the same will happen re the farmers, when in 4 years time people realise '70,000' farms weren't needed to be sold to pay inheritance tax, infant it only effected a few hundred and they didn't need to be sold, the issue will lose it's signifance
|
|
