F1 isn't quite the spectator experience it used to be, you don't feel the cars go past as was the case with the old V10s and don't need ear muffs any more - the F2 cars are noisier! The cornering and braking performance of F1 cars never really comes across on TV as much as watching live - they're astonishingly quick!
I think F1 is rapidly losing its commercial relevance. You only have to look at how many car manufacturers are in Formula E (8) compared to F1 (4) to see which way the wind is blowing.
The FE technology still has a very long way to go though, the cars are still far too slow compared to pretty much any other single seat series - hence the silly city street circuits. Give it another decade though, they're getting better. The manufacturers are getting involved in electric cars because they've been given no choice by governments.
F1 has done an astonishing job with the latest engines, which they definitely don't talk about enough. An F1 car now does around 8mpg during a race, double what the old noisy ones did a decade ago, and achieves 50% thermal efficiency from what's pretty much road fuel. We are starting to see all this tech move into street cars - such as the Mercedes A45 AMG with its 450bhp 2 litre engine, and the new Ferrari SF90 hybrid, the cheapest ever 1,000bhp car at only £360k! A few more years of development will see more of the tech reach the affordable end of the car market.
No return to the austerity of 10 years ago, I'll believe that when I see it
Who’s going to do all the construction work Johnson is promising? Will there be ‘crash’ course for pilots to convert to bricklaying?
Why do you think that comment helps towards the need to re-engineer our economy post covid. Maybe offer constructive criticism rather than political nonsense
Serious question if the Uk is going to build its way out of recession who is going to do it? It’s yet another Johnson headline to hide the fact that he has no real plans about how to deal with the coming recession. You might have 4 million unemployed but for what are they skilled? What are the going to build?
Your first sentence is valid
I expect there will be a national retraining scheme into all aspects of construction and the green economy with hundreds of thousands of apprenticeships and similarly retraining the unemployed
It is certain that millions will need to learn new skills and it will take time
Yes, but it's certainly not happening yet. Current apprenticeship data shows around 17,000 starts in construction in 2019/20. Over the last 5 years, apprenticeships in construction have declined slightly. This is not many for a major re-building programme. By contrast, there were over 60,000 starting an apprenticeship in business administration.
I do not think HMG can be expected to have a full retraining programme in place for covid when it is actually only 4 months since the outbreak started
The speech by the COE in a couple of weeks should address the issue
Given that four months ago the UK was about to embark on HS2, Heathrow third runway, opening railway lines in the north, etc then one would have thought that the plans for construction skills training would already be well advanced. How are they going?
HS2 is under construction, Heathrow third runway has been put in limbo, and the planning and execution of rail lines is underway
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
Free schools - not a failure, but at best an incomplete success.
Pupil premium - a mess. I note he provides no evidence for his claim ‘I believe it has been a success.’ It’s not getting where it’s needed and it’s stretching resources pretty thin elsewhere.
This was a waffly comment:
My first attempt as Education Secretary at a new history curriculum was deeply flawed, but the challenge it provoked improved on everything that had gone before. My cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme was a political fiasco, but it led to a method of commissioning new school buildings that saved the taxpayer billions. My proposal to bring back O-Levels strained the bonds of the 2010-2015 coalition and had to be abandoned but it led to a significant improvement in GCSE standards and school performance.
I should add that those GCSE reforms only worked because of the leadership of two outstanding public servants – Dame Glenys Stacey and Amanda Spielman – who ran the exams watchdog Ofqual at the time. They stood firm in the face of orchestrated opposition from those who wanted standards lowered, and helped end grade inflation. Exam reform was a rocky road but they made the experiment work.
The History is interesting here. The curriculum he wrote was so stuffed with content it was abandoned in toto and most schools set their own. Well, that’s OK at KS3 if they know what they’re doing. But at GCSE Because Spielman was and indeed remains totally incompetent, the criteria for ‘GCSE standards’ in History was written backwards, rendering the results for the first year effectively meaningless. I don’t think that’s ‘a significant improvement in GCSE standards.’ As for performance, given grades were pegged so they would be comparable to or better than the old GCSE, how can we draw meaningful comparisons? Such comparisons as I could draw on the data I have suggests weaker performance, which is not surprising given the uncertainty over how to grade the exams. This is compounded by the decision of at least one major board - AQA - to abandon basic standardisation procedures with so far as I can make out, OFQUAL’s full support.
If he thinks exams reform worked, he needs locking up in an asylum, and I mean that seriously. The new exams are based on essentially the same principles, but weakly drawn criteria that are not meaningfully standardised. They are on every major level a failure. A failure that we are unfortunately left to live with.
Doubly frustrating as in many important respects they are improvements, and had somebody with two brain cells or a basic understanding of pedagogy or assessment been in charge of implementing them, they could have been the resounding success he claims. Exam reform was a rocky road, that the stupidity and incompetence of Gove, Cummings and Spielman made a car crash.
If that’s what he wants to wish on us on a government wide level going forward, God help us.
Thanks for posting that. An interesting, if depressing, read for those (like me) who think that Biden will win comfortably. The main takeaway is that Biden cannot take black people`s votes for granted - many will not vote at all.
That's the political lesson. But it's also worth reading for people who just don't get what ordinary black people (not rioters or even activists) are bothered about - it illustrates @Casino_Royale 's helpful article the other day.
You might expect me to say this but from the sample of black professional people I've spoken to personally (not representative: all in my network, so all middle-class, and in their 30s to early 40s) they just want what the rest of us have: good careers, good schools, decent home to own, safe neighbourhoods etc.
Most of them are enthusiastic and practicing Christians as well, which I found interesting.
All of them are married with families.
I would expect anyone to say this because it is indisputably the case.
(i) Micro. Every person is unique. There are vast differences between people.
(ii) Macro. People are the same. There is no difference between them.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
I think Sturgeon is benefiting from the awfulness of Johnson who doesn't appear to have recovered from his Covid encounter yet.
I agree that we tend to judge leaders by comparing them to other leaders, rather than in absolute terms. This of course inevitable shows Sturgeon and Starmer in a flattering light, compared to the grim abyss that is Johnson.
In absolute terms I’d say that Sturgeon is pretty good too. She has great “feel” for certain things (tartan face mask was a good minor example). She is competent, which in the current climate makes her look like a colossus.
Yes, it looks like Covid19 has had a lasting effect on Johnson. He was not in good shape, and he looks in even worse condition now. That might, and probably will, matter.
F1 isn't quite the spectator experience it used to be, you don't feel the cars go past as was the case with the old V10s and don't need ear muffs any more - the F2 cars are noisier! The cornering and braking performance of F1 cars never really comes across on TV as much as watching live - they're astonishingly quick!
I think F1 is rapidly losing its commercial relevance. You only have to look at how many car manufacturers are in Formula E (8) compared to F1 (4) to see which way the wind is blowing.
The FE technology still has a very long way to go though, the cars are still far too slow compared to pretty much any other single seat series - hence the silly city street circuits. Give it another decade though, they're getting better. The manufacturers are getting involved in electric cars because they've been given no choice by governments.
F1 has done an astonishing job with the latest engines, which they definitely don't talk about enough. An F1 car now does around 8mpg during a race, double what the old noisy ones did a decade ago, and achieves 50% thermal efficiency from what's pretty much road fuel. We are starting to see all this tech move into street cars - such as the Mercedes A45 AMG with its 450bhp 2 litre engine, and the new Ferrari SF90 hybrid, the cheapest ever 1,000bhp car at only £360k! A few more years of development will see more of the tech reach the affordable end of the car market.
Of the four manufacturers in F1 only Ferrari will still be selling IC cars in 2030 and I have my doubts about them.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.
Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.
The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.
In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.
In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’
The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.
The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.
The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.
Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.
But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.
Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
You mean, I should lay off the Daily Record and the National that I was reading this morning?
I’m vain enough to be preening that you think it my ‘one weakness’ though.
(PS, I never read the Times. My newspaper of choice is the Guardian. No political reasons, I’m just a cheapskate.)
So, you subscribe to The National? A bit odd for a self-confessed cheapskate.
Why do you need to subscribe to the National when it is online
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Just like they did at education.
That's a great pitch
Our goal is to make all Government as good as the department for education...
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Selling that to the public is an impossibility since all governments promises to clear things up and yet each government apparently faces the same problems with the service.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.
Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.
The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.
In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.
In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’
The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.
The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.
The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.
Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.
But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.
Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
The big difference from 2014 is that neither of the two big Westminster parties have any skin in the game from Scotland anymore. The Secretary of State for Scotland isn't even from a Scottish constituency anymore. This matters - there are no longer credible Scottish unionists figures from Westminster to oppose the movement to indepdendence - so it will only be a matter of time.
Only STV - or similar electoral reform for Westminster elections - can ensure that there are Unionist MPs elected in respectable numbers from Scotland.
The election of 80% SNP MPs on 45% of the vote completely distorts the political climate.
Who complained when those were Scottish Labour's figures?
Thanks for posting that. An interesting, if depressing, read for those (like me) who think that Biden will win comfortably. The main takeaway is that Biden cannot take black people`s votes for granted - many will not vote at all.
That's the political lesson. But it's also worth reading for people who just don't get what ordinary black people (not rioters or even activists) are bothered about - it illustrates @Casino_Royale 's helpful article the other day.
You might expect me to say this but from the sample of black professional people I've spoken to personally (not representative: all in my network, so all middle-class, and in their 30s to early 40s) they just want what the rest of us have: good careers, good schools, decent home to own, safe neighbourhoods etc.
Most of them are enthusiastic and practicing Christians as well, which I found interesting.
All of them are married with families.
The Tories miss a trick when they overlook this. I know a couple of Bangladeshi origin - came here in the 70s - who say that economicaslly their instinct tells them to vote Conservative as their family has small businesses and they think the Tories are better for low business taxes. They are long-standing members of the Labour Party because they feel the party sees them as normal people and the Conservatives traditionally do not - "unless we're millionaires they see us as a general problem rather than as individuals". They feel it's got a bit better with people like Sunak near the top, but still mistrust the instincts of the party as a whole.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Surely they’re the markets he gets asked for?
Who is requesting prices for Ruth Davidson to be next FM?
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
I think Sturgeon is benefiting from the awfulness of Johnson who doesn't appear to have recovered from his Covid encounter yet.
Yes, it looks like Covid19 has had a lasting effect on Johnson. He was not in good shape, and he looks in even worse condition now. That might, and probably will, matter.
Don't say that, I was informed very strongly by williamglenn I think it was that he has always looked the same amount of terrible, and saying he is looking worse now is something only supporters of his who are becoming disillusioned would say, as they see the truth now.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Selling that to the public is an impossibility since all governments promises to clear things up and yet each government apparently faces the same problems with the service.
Very much so! Every government starts by saying they'll get rid of red tape and needless bureaucracy, the big challenge is in actually doing it against the howls of anguish from the blob. They've now got less than four years.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.
Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.
The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.
In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.
In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’
The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.
The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.
The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.
Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.
But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.
Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
The big difference from 2014 is that neither of the two big Westminster parties have any skin in the game from Scotland anymore. The Secretary of State for Scotland isn't even from a Scottish constituency anymore. This matters - there are no longer credible Scottish unionists figures from Westminster to oppose the movement to indepdendence - so it will only be a matter of time.
This lack of political talent is also of course why the SNP have locked out Holyrood for so long.
I remember when SNP activists were trying to go easy on Wendy Alexander on the grounds that if she was removed and replaced by somebody competent it would be a disaster for the SNP.
With hindsight, their pessimism is quite funny.
With hindsight, Wendy was the last competent Unionist leader.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
On the contrary, that kind of smug self certainty is exactly what got the Unionists over the line the last time. We want more of it.
Thanks for posting that. An interesting, if depressing, read for those (like me) who think that Biden will win comfortably. The main takeaway is that Biden cannot take black people`s votes for granted - many will not vote at all.
That's the political lesson. But it's also worth reading for people who just don't get what ordinary black people (not rioters or even activists) are bothered about - it illustrates @Casino_Royale 's helpful article the other day.
You might expect me to say this but from the sample of black professional people I've spoken to personally (not representative: all in my network, so all middle-class, and in their 30s to early 40s) they just want what the rest of us have: good careers, good schools, decent home to own, safe neighbourhoods etc.
Most of them are enthusiastic and practicing Christians as well, which I found interesting.
All of them are married with families.
I'd guess that most of them would be reluctant to "take the knee". The black people I know don't see themselves as black, they see themselves as people.
There's no template for how black people see themselves. They are as diverse in this as anybody else. As to being acutely conscious of your skin colour, I imagine this is more likely where you are in a minority, especially a disadvantaged one.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Does Cherry have a shout?
Yes.
Though she first has to get selected to stand as a candidate... If Robertson wins that battle would he not be a much more formidable leader than Cherry?
Thanks for posting that. An interesting, if depressing, read for those (like me) who think that Biden will win comfortably. The main takeaway is that Biden cannot take black people`s votes for granted - many will not vote at all.
That's the political lesson. But it's also worth reading for people who just don't get what ordinary black people (not rioters or even activists) are bothered about - it illustrates @Casino_Royale 's helpful article the other day.
You might expect me to say this but from the sample of black professional people I've spoken to personally (not representative: all in my network, so all middle-class, and in their 30s to early 40s) they just want what the rest of us have: good careers, good schools, decent home to own, safe neighbourhoods etc.
Most of them are enthusiastic and practicing Christians as well, which I found interesting.
All of them are married with families.
The Tories miss a trick when they overlook this. I know a couple of Bangladeshi origin - came here in the 70s - who say that economicaslly their instinct tells them to vote Conservative as their family has small businesses and they think the Tories are better for low business taxes. They are long-standing members of the Labour Party because they feel the party sees them as normal people and the Conservatives traditionally do not - "unless we're millionaires they see us as a general problem rather than as individuals". They feel it's got a bit better with people like Sunak near the top, but still mistrust the instincts of the party as a whole.
I can sort of see this but it seems unwarranted since Mrs Thatcher. As a former member for so many years and seeing my dad being a member for 30+ years the party is very different to what people on the outside imagine it to be.
It has, until recently, been about wanting to get on in life without massive state intrusion. The current big government stance has been off-putting for a lot of people but ultimately it's still the party of "getting on" rather than the party of grievances like Labour. I find people who want to pin the blame of their personal failures on "society" are more open to Labour and those who want to take responsibility trend more to the Tories. That is changing because of the Tory stance on immigration, though I think there is probably some level of truth behind wage depression among the working classes because of high levels of immigration.
Overall though, I think the Labour coalition of voters is over reliant on minority voters that aren't politically aligned with them for anything that isn't very superficial. Already with working class voters we've seen Dave, then May and now Boris take huge chunks out of Labour's traditional base. Now with people like Rishi at the top of government, living proof that the party gives no fucks about someone's skin colour or background, it is already tougher for Labour to maintain the pretence that the Tories are somehow racist.
As I have just said to Malc you reflect the way the Scots Nats dismissed every reasonable argument 70 years ago and it got then nowhere.
If and when another referendum is held serious questions will require serious answers, not insults and hyperbole
I think the point is you can’t make an economic case for independence. Salmond tried that several times and got rebuffed. The numbers simply don’t add up without epic fiddling.
The emotional case is the strong one. ‘Scotland is a grown up nation and deserves better than being run by the English’ is a powerful argument. Farage showed how effective it was on the far weaker emotional case for exiting the EU.
The question is whether it’s strong enough, on its own. At the moment such evidence as there is suggests not. That may change, of course.
Correct , it is impossible to know what the finances of Scotland would be if independent , given the arse the unionists claim to have made of it and continuously boasting of what a pig's ear they have made of it is bizarre. Would be hard to be any worse off and given we will have no debt and will implement policies to suit our own economy then it can only be better and bear little resemblance to the fiddled Westminster fake numbers.
Your last sentence falls as it is just the decades long nationalists hyperbole
I really do look forward to a referendum and these issues being openly discussed and of course the recent decision by Starmer, and no doubt Brown, determination to defend the union just raised the bar much higher
You are fighting WWI G if you think anyone gives a crap for Starmer , London millionaire peer or failed loser , Northern Britisher Brown. Both part of theestablishment of Westminster troughers. PS: Can you answer following, why is Scotland with all its natural resources poorer than every developed small nation of a similar size on every measurement, most of whom have little or no natural resources in comparison. Tell me how the union managed that success.
Hi Malc. I’m just getting a bit concerned about these comments.
An hour and a half and not a single turnip has been thrown yet,
Has the hot weather had a negative effect on stockpiles or are you saving them for phase 2 of lockdown?
It is the Irish effect from the Celtic Arc. Turnips are out. Potatoes are in
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Whether or not that's true in theory, in practice any benefit from reforms of that magnitude will only be felt in the long term. At an arbitrary date in the near future - ooh, I dunno, 2024 - they are more likely to trash the efficient functioning of Government.
In other news about unionist Wendys, I note that Wendy Chamberlain has endorsed Layla Moran, making it 3 MPs each. Daisy Cooper's endorsement remains much sought after.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
I think Sturgeon is benefiting from the awfulness of Johnson who doesn't appear to have recovered from his Covid encounter yet.
I agree that we tend to judge leaders by comparing them to other leaders, rather than in absolute terms. This of course inevitable shows Sturgeon and Starmer in a flattering light, compared to the grim abyss that is Johnson.
In absolute terms I’d say that Sturgeon is pretty good too. She has great “feel” for certain things (tartan face mask was a good minor example). She is competent, which in the current climate makes her look like a colossus.
Yes, it looks like Covid19 has had a lasting effect on Johnson. He was not in good shape, and he looks in even worse condition now. That might, and probably will, matter.
Yes, I agree, she is good. She's a talented politician.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Selling that to the public is an impossibility since all governments promises to clear things up and yet each government apparently faces the same problems with the service.
Very much so! Every government starts by saying they'll get rid of red tape and needless bureaucracy, the big challenge is in actually doing it against the howls of anguish from the blob. They've now got less than four years.
The bowls of anguish are not just from the blob, as you put it, but from the people whose interests those rules are there to protect eg homeowners not wanting to find some hideous badly built development blocking light and access springing up next door or built on flood plains without adequate drainage. Or those not wanting pesticides in their food. Or rules about the funding of schools so that taxpayers’ money is not trousered with little scrutiny. And so on.
It is easy to rail at “bureaucracy” in the abstract. Much harder to come up with specific examples and seek to address the underlying mischief in an intelligent and practical manner. If a government does that, hooray! Is that what this government is seeking to do? I have my doubts.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
On the contrary, that kind of smug self certainty is exactly what got the Unionists over the line the last time. We want more of it.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
Sounds to me like an attempt to conflate pedophilia with homosexuality all over again.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
I'm not intending to be rude as I nearly always find your posts interesting, but I don't understand what you're talking about here. I've vaguely heard right-wingers going on about Common Purpose as some sort of left-wing thing but I've no idea what it is (and if it's not reached me, a Morning Star reader, you can assume it's not well-known on the left). Looking it up on wikipedia I'm little the wiser - seems to be a harmless charity who the Mail dislike:
The bowls of anguish are not just from the blob, as you put it, but from the people whose interests those rules are there to protect eg homeowners not wanting to find some hideous badly built development blocking light and access springing up next door or built on flood plains without adequate drainage. Or those not wanting pesticides in their food. Or rules about the funding of schools so that taxpayers’ money is not trousered with little scrutiny. And so on.
It is easy to rail at “bureaucracy” in the abstract. Much harder to come up with specific examples and seek to address the underlying mischief in an intelligent and practical manner. If a government does that, hooray! Is that what this government is seeking to do? I have my doubts.
It reminds me of Cameron's Bonfire of the Quangos.
As one example: they abolished the British Railways Board. Clearly much overdue, you might think, given that the railways are privatised and BR no longer needs to exist.
Apart from, er, all the old viaducts which will actually drop on someone's head if they're not maintained (the "burdensome estate"). Which is all that the 21st century BRB ever did. Turns out they still need to be maintained.
So the entire function of the British Railways Board was transferred to the Highways Agency. Quangos nominally abolished: one. Actual effect: a load of consultation and lawyer hours to make the change, and apart from that, zero. Still, it made a nice headline one Sunday.
Yeah have to be honest, I've never heard this common purpose phrase until today
It sounds quite noble and benign! Suppose it isn't though. Suppose it's something very very sinister like removing the Rhodes statue or the Simpsons recasting Apu.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Does Cherry have a shout?
Yes.
Though she first has to get selected to stand as a candidate... If Robertson wins that battle would he not be a much more formidable leader than Cherry?
I would tend to be Robertson-sympathetic. He is a thoroughly decent, hard-working soul. But Cherry has fire in her belly, which I also like. I think they both have good leadership qualities, but very different. You’re probably right that Robertson would be considered more formidable, but the reality might be different to the perception.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Does Cherry have a shout?
Yes.
Though she first has to get selected to stand as a candidate... If Robertson wins that battle would he not be a much more formidable leader than Cherry?
I still don't understand why they are going for the same seat. Is there not a likely vacancy in Renfrewshire North and West?
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
As the last government which tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor found, you need legislation to do so. It is not something you can simply announce on a Monday morning. OTOH if the Lord Chancellor is again made responsible for judges that would simply be going back to the old system.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
Shadsy also has prices up for Next First Minister. Kate Forbes strikes me as being very short indeed at 4/1. Does Shadsy have some inside info? I know Forbes well (she represents an area I have strong connections with), and I admire her, but she is still young and relatively untested. 4/1 just strikes me as being far too short.
If you’re looking for a longer-odds tip, I like the look of Andrew Wilson at 33/1. An outstanding personality within the independence movement, the former MSP is (unusually for SNP figures) widely respected and admired throughout the Scottish establishment: business, finance sector, media, academia, civil society and even among the other political parties. But the key problem is that I am not aware that he is even standing next year? If he doesn’t, it’s very hard to see how he can build his internal base sufficiently in time to replace Sturgeon.
Looking at the top Unionist candidates, Richard Leonard (SLab) has shortened to 16/1, presumably on the back of the Starmer effect? But Leonard himself is universally regarded as a figure of ridicule, not least within his own party; and the SLD’s wouldn’t touch him with a bargepole. Jackson Carlaw (SCon) remains 25/1. That is way too short. The Scottish Labour and Liberal Democrat parties would implode if their leaderships ever tried to install the hapless Tory as first minister. Carlaw would be poor value at 50/1. Not quite sure why Shadsy is still listing Ruth Davidson at 20/1, shorter than her successor? She is retiring from parliament next year.
Stuart, Wilson is not even at the races.
I know, hence the 33/1. But I’m intrigued by Shadsy even listing him.
having Davidson as well, he has just picked some names he knows from the past. He is taking the piss having Leonard or Carlaw at anything under 1000-1
Does Cherry have a shout?
Yes.
Though she first has to get selected to stand as a candidate... If Robertson wins that battle would he not be a much more formidable leader than Cherry?
I still don't understand why they are going for the same seat. Is there not a likely vacancy in Renfrewshire North and West?
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
If that were the case, I agree. However, it's pretty clear within the speech that a good deal of job creation is entailed within the reforms.
Certain geographical areas being singled out could indicates to that plans for these areas may be relatively advanced?
'We need to be more ambitious for Newcastle, for Teesside and Teesdale, for North Wales, for the North-East of Scotland, for East Lancashire and West Bromwich.'
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
As the last government which tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor found, you need legislation to do so. It is not something you can simply announce on a Monday morning. OTOH if the Lord Chancellor is again made responsible for judges that would simply be going back to the old system.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
If that were the case, I agree. However, it's pretty clear within the speech that a good deal of job creation is entailed within the reforms.
Certain geographical areas being singled out could indicates to that plans for these areas may be relatively advanced?
'We need to be more ambitious for Newcastle, for Teesside and Teesdale, for North Wales, for the North-East of Scotland, for East Lancashire and West Bromwich.'
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
Selling that to the public is an impossibility since all governments promises to clear things up and yet each government apparently faces the same problems with the service.
Very much so! Every government starts by saying they'll get rid of red tape and needless bureaucracy, the big challenge is in actually doing it against the howls of anguish from the blob. They've now got less than four years.
The bowls of anguish are not just from the blob, as you put it, but from the people whose interests those rules are there to protect eg homeowners not wanting to find some hideous badly built development blocking light and access springing up next door or built on flood plains without adequate drainage. Or those not wanting pesticides in their food. Or rules about the funding of schools so that taxpayers’ money is not trousered with little scrutiny. And so on.
It is easy to rail at “bureaucracy” in the abstract. Much harder to come up with specific examples and seek to address the underlying mischief in an intelligent and practical manner. If a government does that, hooray! Is that what this government is seeking to do? I have my doubts.
This is a government of hand-wavers. They just propose some high-level newspaper headline and airily wave away any objections. Something will turn up. These are the people who honed their skills for forensically fine detail on Brexit....
When you have a PM who seems happy to have his a*se photographed whilst he is lying on the the floor and then allows that photo to be splurged across the top of a leading daily.... well, to me that says a lot about his priorities.
To me he is just a watered down version of Trump. Self-obsessed, untrustworthy and out for the main chance IMO. The rest of us out here in the real world... I doubt we impinge on his consciousness at all.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
They’ll be claiming they’re a “gender” next and that anyone criticising them is an “ist” of some kind.
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
As the last government which tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor found, you need legislation to do so. It is not something you can simply announce on a Monday morning. OTOH if the Lord Chancellor is again made responsible for judges that would simply be going back to the old system.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
If that were the case, I agree. However, it's pretty clear within the speech that a good deal of job creation is entailed within the reforms.
Certain geographical areas being singled out could indicates to that plans for these areas may be relatively advanced?
'We need to be more ambitious for Newcastle, for Teesside and Teesdale, for North Wales, for the North-East of Scotland, for East Lancashire and West Bromwich.'
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
You’ve just summarised one of my most recent headers, in fact, several of them.
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I had feared they would rebrand themselves "We Love Children", and dupe politicians and big corporates into adopting their slogan, poses and agenda
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I had feared they would rebrand themselves "We Love Children", and dupe politicians and big corporates into adopting their slogan, poses and agenda
'I am concerned by elements of your programme.' 'Well you obviously don't love children then!'
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I had feared they would rebrand themselves "We Love Children", and dupe politicians and big corporates into adopting their slogan, poses and agenda
'I am concerned by elements of your programme.' 'Well you obviously don't love children then!'
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
Having lived in London over 25 years I really dont recognise it as unpoliceable, I think the police generally do a good job and its working pretty well. I feel far safer in London than I did growing up in a typical provincial town, where entering the wrong bar, bumping into someone, chatting to someones girlfriend could often to lead to a potential fight.
People who dont live in London have some very strange views about London that are not representative or accurate.
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
As the last government which tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor found, you need legislation to do so. It is not something you can simply announce on a Monday morning. OTOH if the Lord Chancellor is again made responsible for judges that would simply be going back to the old system.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
I think we should encourage all child-abusers to set up online accounts. There is no other mechanism in the world that makes them so easy to catch...
Has everyone forgotten the episode 10 or 15 years ago where the cops simply used credit card records from a confiscated child-abuse server and then arrested thousands of pedos? Operation Ore caught over 7,000 all in one go.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I had feared they would rebrand themselves "We Love Children", and dupe politicians and big corporates into adopting their slogan, poses and agenda
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
You’ve just summarised one of my most recent headers, in fact, several of them.
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
I go for the rather pithier "Them & us" to sum up the current govts attitude
Yeah the people that seem to attack London don't seem to actually live or work there.
I like its diversity and the fact it feels young and fast-moving. Of course if you don't like that kind of thing then you're free to move out. But a lot of elderly people seem to attack London despite not living there for years.
Personally I moved away from the countryside to London because there is sod all to do!
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
I think we should encourage all child-abusers to set up online accounts. There is no other mechanism in the world that makes them so easy to catch...
Has everyone forgotten the episode 10 or 15 years ago where the cops simply used credit card records from a confiscated child-abuse server and then arrested thousands of pedos? Operation Ore caught over 7,000 all in one go.
Why can’t we make it illegal for credit card companies and banks to process payments to such sites?
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
Having lived in London over 25 years I really dont recognise it as unpoliceable, I think the police generally do a good job and its working pretty well. I feel far safer in London than I did growing up in a typical provincial town, where entering the wrong bar, bumping into someone, chatting to someones girlfriend could often to lead to a potential fight.
People who dont live in London have some very strange views about London that are not representative or accurate.
Yes, it’s utter bilge. I also live in London, but I have travelled to Brazil frequently over the last 20 years (may be a while before I’m able to go again, though). Anyone who thinks London is unpoliceable should spend a few days in Rio de Janeiro, if they really want to know what being in an unpoliceable city feels like.
tyson hasn`t been active on the site for a month. Hope he`s ok.
I also fear for Gideon Wise, who had Covid and was last active on Vanilla on 20 April.
Same with Roger - it is concerning when people disappear. It's odd because over time you do come to feel that you "know" other posters but at the end of the day I could be talking to a bot factory in Moscow for all I know!
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
You’ve just summarised one of my most recent headers, in fact, several of them.
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
I go for the rather pithier "Them & us" to sum up the current govts attitude
Quite. I was just pointing out to @Sandpit that a government which protects the incompetent (or worse) is not best placed to deal with a civil service that does the same.
In common with many countries the party of the government in Ireland benefited from a "rally round the flag" Corona-boost in the opinion polls, where FG surged to a 34-28 lead over SF from a 21-35 deficit.
This lead has held to the latest opinion poll a week ago, even as the emergency has receded. So, what happens now that a new government has formed, with the Taoiseach from FF?
A. Will FF see a boost as leading the government? B. Will FG retain this support as appreciation for a job perceived to be well done? C. Will normal politics reassert itself and SF retake the lead?
I have absolutely no idea. It will be fascinating to see. What do other people think?
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
They’ll be claiming they’re a “gender” next and that anyone criticising them is an “ist” of some kind.
And they would be wrong. Gender is a very personal thing that affects how you see yourself in the world. It does not inflict harm on others.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
They’ll be claiming they’re a “gender” next and that anyone criticising them is an “ist” of some kind.
In some ways, I'm surprised that PIE did not succeed in their aims.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
I think we should encourage all child-abusers to set up online accounts. There is no other mechanism in the world that makes them so easy to catch...
Has everyone forgotten the episode 10 or 15 years ago where the cops simply used credit card records from a confiscated child-abuse server and then arrested thousands of pedos? Operation Ore caught over 7,000 all in one go.
Why can’t we make it illegal for credit card companies and banks to process payments to such sites?
Payment providers already hate processing payments to ostensibly legal porn sites because (a) the chargeback rates are through the roof ("no darling, I didn't make that payment, I'll call the bank and get it refunded"), (b) people use stolen credit cards on them, (c) lots of porn site operators are, unsurprisingly, dodgy and will abscond with their customers' money.
So I doubt that making such payments illegal would make any difference. I'd strongly suspect that most payments to child abuse sites are via Bitcoin or similar anyway.
Yeah the people that seem to attack London don't seem to actually live or work there.
I like its diversity and the fact it feels young and fast-moving. Of course if you don't like that kind of thing then you're free to move out. But a lot of elderly people seem to attack London despite not living there for years.
Personally I moved away from the countryside to London because there is sod all to do!
To be honest, Cummings couldn't come up with a convincing lie to get himself out of breaking lockdown rules so I really doubt his intellectual ability to make any meaningful change.
His blog comes across as somebody who spent half an hour Googling something and then wrote an essay on it. I've recounted before that his views on AI and technology more broadly made me laugh.
Yeah the people that seem to attack London don't seem to actually live or work there.
I like its diversity and the fact it feels young and fast-moving. Of course if you don't like that kind of thing then you're free to move out. But a lot of elderly people seem to attack London despite not living there for years.
Personally I moved away from the countryside to London because there is sod all to do!
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
On the contrary, that kind of smug self certainty is exactly what got the Unionists over the line the last time. We want more of it.
And wearing Labour Party badges while campaigning. Don't want to help you out too much, but I reckon that might not be such a boost this time round.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
You’ve just summarised one of my most recent headers, in fact, several of them.
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
I go for the rather pithier "Them & us" to sum up the current govts attitude
Quite. I was just pointing out to @Sandpit that a government which protects the incompetent (or worse) is not best placed to deal with a civil service that does the same.
I think you make a good point - perhaps even nearer the point, there is clearly 'talent' being left on the back benches, and this is probably because the prospective Ministers could present a challenge to the will of the leadership, which is quite clearly counter to the central argument of the speech.
However, now that Cummings/Boris are beginning to introduce their plans, this may change. 'You are going to move the Foreign Office to North Wales, do you want the job?' is different to saying 'You are Foreign Secretary - what do you think about moving to North Wales'. It is possible that when the objectives have been clearly defined and agreed upon, the cabinet can be strengthened.
Good speech (on paper). I could find little to disagree with. I would be interested in @ydoethur's view of Gove's assessment of his own education reforms!
In a sense the Government has been lucky - a lot of what they clearly wanted to do anyway will be covered under Covid stimulus.
The issue is that civil service reform is a prerequisite for the rest of the government's agenda. They've been totally infected by Common Purpose, and are more interested in processes than outcomes. Getting the woke box-tickers out of the way does more for the economy than almost anything else.
What on earth does this mean? “Infected by Common Purpose”? “Woke box-tickers”? “More interested in processes than outcomes”? The last sentence might have been said by someone like Jenrick when someone pointed out the law to him.
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
You’ve just summarised one of my most recent headers, in fact, several of them.
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
I go for the rather pithier "Them & us" to sum up the current govts attitude
Quite. I was just pointing out to @Sandpit that a government which protects the incompetent (or worse) is not best placed to deal with a civil service that does the same.
I agree with you, there needs to be more accountability across government. That doesn't mean that mob justice should prevail, nor trial by media.
Astonishingly good figures for Sturgeon there, considering that this is a Great Britain-wide poll. She clearly has an awful lot of admirers in England. Rightly so.
The winner of the Next First Minister market depends largely on when Sturgeon decides to go.
There is of course the issue of what Ladbrokes and other bookies would do if the job title changes. That could be pre- or post-independence, or in conjunction with it. The office of First Minister of Norway was changed to Prime Minister of Norway 27 years prior to their successful independence referendum in 1905. On the other hand, even when independent, Scots could decide to keep the name of the office as First Minister, which has the advantage of familiarity. The job title is far less important than the substantive powers.
Norway and Sweden were in a personal rather than political Union under the crown of Sweden after 1873 (not 1878). That change was the reason why the title changed (and the location of the office, which was previously in Stockholm not Oslo). Scotland and England are in one United Kingdom. The parallel doesn’t work.
Or to put it another way, do you really think Boris Johnson or even Keir Starmer will be willing to put forward and pass legislation that would change the statutory office of First Minister established under Section 44 of the Scotland Act 1998, that would further the SNP narrative they both reject?
“one United Kingdom”
Ho ho.
I’m a big fan of the Johnson/Starmer Jock-bashing axis: they have both decided to simply keep building the dam higher and higher, as the weight of water behind the crumbling, ill-designed structure just keeps getting greater and greater. Tony Blair was no structural engineer, and his blueprint to “kill nationalism stone dead” has so enraged British Nationalists that they have set themselves on an irreversible course to destroying the thing they claim to love.
Are you saying Scotland is not part of the United Kingdom?
Intellectually: no.
Emotionally: no.
Technically: kind of.
Yet in 2014 55% of actual Scottish voters disagreed. And since then there is no metric other than a few MoE polls to suggest a substantial shift.
Try not to confuse wishful thinking from the safe(ish) distance of Sweden with reality.
55% of people resident in Scotland, which is not quite the same thing.
Personally, I’d prefer zero polling on this topic. The shock when the reality hits home as the dam collapses...
Umm, Scottish voters are ‘people resident in Scotland.’ That’s why they have, y’know, votes in Scotland.
The problem for Scottish independence is that while its supporters are becoming more strident the actual issues have, if anything, moved the fundamentals against them.
In 2014 there were serious doubts as to whether Scotland could remain in the EU, which was vital to the economic case for independence. Now, we know it wouldn’t be in the EU and would have to apply under article 49, a long process.
In 2014, there was a strong government with substantial Scottish representation in Westminster, which had worked effectively with the SNP to deliver a referendum that everyone agrees was free, fair and democratic, although some quibbles about the franchise and its extent remain. It was a government that could be expected to negotiate a divorce on a reasonable basis, in good faith. Now, we have a factional, divisive and populist English dominated government led by an unstable liar whose skills in negotiations are zero, and because of that, would not negotiate at all. His response would be, ‘independence? Fine. Sod off. Enjoy the border checks at Gretna.’
The oil price is on the floor and may never recover fully.
The pound, leaving aside its own serious issues, is being debased to support the government of the UK, and the Euro continues to be a mess, so the currency situation would still be unclear.
The SNP itself is divided and the Salmond saga is far from over. It may bring down Sturgeon. More likely it simply becomes a festering sore that taints a government noted for its patriotism but not for its executive ability.
Does that mean a referendum on independence would vote no again? Well, no, not for certain. Often these things are about emotion rather than reason (Brexit and perhaps more pertinently, the Irish Free State wave hello). And the mere fact the UK government is so unpopular in Scotland in itself does probably have an impact.
But there is no sign of a shift from 45-55 to the 60-40 that would probably be needed to call a referendum in the expectation of winning it. I strongly suspect, indeed, that if Sturgeon had thought May or Johnson would have granted her a referendum she wouldn’t have called for one, as a second ‘No’ really would kill independence and possibly the SNP stone dead.
Personally, I wonder if this all isn’t irrelevant anyway, as I think the age of the nation state (and there I include the EU) may be drawing to an end for other reasons. But I personally would be surprised if Scotland were to become independent in the next ten years. Not shocked, not dying of a heart attack, but surprised.
Ydoethur, your one weakness is your knowledge of Scotland , Independence, SNP etc. You don't half write a load of old bollocks on the topic. Apart from that keep up the good work. Might be worth reading some actual Scottish "real" news sites rather than the Times and Daily Mail.
The big difference from 2014 is that neither of the two big Westminster parties have any skin in the game from Scotland anymore. The Secretary of State for Scotland isn't even from a Scottish constituency anymore. This matters - there are no longer credible Scottish unionists figures from Westminster to oppose the movement to indepdendence - so it will only be a matter of time.
Only STV - or similar electoral reform for Westminster elections - can ensure that there are Unionist MPs elected in respectable numbers from Scotland.
The election of 80% SNP MPs on 45% of the vote completely distorts the political climate.
Who complained when those were Scottish Labour's figures?
Lots of people, I'm sure. STV would help to break the Labour stranglehold on inner cities in England, and the Tory dominance of rural areas, giving parties good reason to broaden their campaigning.
It would be a general good - but there's a very specific issue with Scottish politics that it would help to solve.
On topic, Priti Patel is vulnerable, if Boris can find a capable minority candidate to succeed her (James Cleverly? Kemi Badenoch?). It's sad to say. but replacing her with a stale pale man, however capable, would politically be extremely risky.
Patel talks a good game, but people are getting tired of her being appalled on a daily basis whilst nothing is done.
On reshuffles generally, I am not sure much will happen this year, given Boris's need for human shields on Brexit. He needs as many Brexiteers inside the Cabinet as possible to cover the inevitable disappointment of whatever is agreed as the transition period ends. And it will be a dud because the Brexiteer groups have different outcomes in mind so they can't all be happy.
On topic, Priti Patel is vulnerable, if Boris can find a capable minority candidate to succeed her (James Cleverly? Kemi Badenoch?). It's sad to say. but replacing her with a stale pale man, however capable, would politically be extremely risky.
Patel talks a good game, but people are getting tired of her being appalled on a daily basis whilst nothing is done.
I just find her very unlikeable in terms of personality. That's not unique to her of course, I find Gavin Williamson just as unlikeable and I note he is probably for the chop as well.
I don't really like much of the current cabinet due to their general lack of ability and talent but I'd have to say I don't mind Sunak.
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
Sounds like PIE all over again, trying to normalise their perversions and illegal activities.
I thought the PC term was "cross-generational relationships."
I think we should encourage all child-abusers to set up online accounts. There is no other mechanism in the world that makes them so easy to catch...
Has everyone forgotten the episode 10 or 15 years ago where the cops simply used credit card records from a confiscated child-abuse server and then arrested thousands of pedos? Operation Ore caught over 7,000 all in one go.
Due to the police failing to deal with the issue of stolen credit cards being used for criminal activities, they managed to destroy a number of innocent people.
On topic, if Dom C is going to continue reshaping Whitehall, I wonder whether Robert Buckland is worth a bet at 12/1 as the next one out. It seems to me like the Ministry of Justice would be an ideal target for Johnson to chop - seen as quite lefty, relatively new, prisons can be given back to the Home Office under a minister seen as hardline and sends a shot across the bows of meddling judges with courts either going back to a reconstituted Lord Chancellor's Department and / or a new Agency structure.
As the last government which tried to abolish the Lord Chancellor found, you need legislation to do so. It is not something you can simply announce on a Monday morning. OTOH if the Lord Chancellor is again made responsible for judges that would simply be going back to the old system.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
Hi Cyclefree, I was thinking more a return to the status ante quo of making the Lord Chancellor responsible for judges and an argument that having the Home Office taking over prisons etc would make a more "streamlined" process.
To be honest, Cummings couldn't come up with a convincing lie to get himself out of breaking lockdown rules so I really doubt his intellectual ability to make any meaningful change.
His blog comes across as somebody who spent half an hour Googling something and then wrote an essay on it. I've recounted before that his views on AI and technology more broadly made me laugh.
The best bits of his blog are when he talks about his experiences of dealing first hand with the civil service as assistant to Michael Gove at education. That doesn't come from half an hour's googling.
Cummings' critique is sound, his solutions much less so, in my view. He has enormous faith in people of high mathematical talent and their ability to create working models to make better policy decisions.
Trouble is, that strategy is what, in effect, helped to cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Complex derivatives, created by people of .....er........high mathematical ability, were a major factor in the collapse of the banking system.
To be honest, Cummings couldn't come up with a convincing lie to get himself out of breaking lockdown rules so I really doubt his intellectual ability to make any meaningful change.
His blog comes across as somebody who spent half an hour Googling something and then wrote an essay on it. I've recounted before that his views on AI and technology more broadly made me laugh.
Really?
A bunch of people that went after Cummings in the hue and cry are about to discover that old maxim about digging two graves applies to them.
On reshuffles generally, I am not sure much will happen this year, given Boris's need for human shields on Brexit. He needs as many Brexiteers inside the Cabinet as possible to cover the inevitable disappointment of whatever is agreed as the transition period ends. And it will be a dud because the Brexiteer groups have different outcomes in mind so they can't all be happy.
I think Jenrick is his big problem.
Having backed him all the way with "did nothing wrong" he can't be sacked for incompetence.
And if they keep him, Starmer gets to punch the bruise repeatedly.
On topic, Priti Patel is vulnerable, if Boris can find a capable minority candidate to succeed her (James Cleverly? Kemi Badenoch?). It's sad to say. but replacing her with a stale pale man, however capable, would politically be extremely risky.
Patel talks a good game, but people are getting tired of her being appalled on a daily basis whilst nothing is done.
I just find her very unlikeable in terms of personality. That's not unique to her of course, I find Gavin Williamson just as unlikeable and I note he is probably for the chop as well.
I don't really like much of the current cabinet due to their general lack of ability and talent but I'd have to say I don't mind Sunak.
Wait til the autumn. I predict you will dislike him then. We all will.
It means an organisation that doesn't think about people and outcomes, only about processes and procedures. It's the sort of organisation that sends people from hospitals to care homes in the middle of a pandemic, it's the sort of organisation that leads to people like Cressida Dick constantly failing upwards until London becomes unpoliceable, an organisation where no-one ever gets fired, only moved on to their next assignment to be someone else's problem, where the organisation as a whole is more occupied by the interests of itself than the people it serves, in its staff rather than its customers.
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
Having lived in London over 25 years I really dont recognise it as unpoliceable, I think the police generally do a good job and its working pretty well. I feel far safer in London than I did growing up in a typical provincial town, where entering the wrong bar, bumping into someone, chatting to someones girlfriend could often to lead to a potential fight.
People who dont live in London have some very strange views about London that are not representative or accurate.
Okay, I don't live in London. Is it not true that the number of murders has significantly increased over the past few years, and in recent weeks there have been violent clashes and numerous injuries, while the police were kneeling in front of protestors rather than standing up to them?
Comments
F1 has done an astonishing job with the latest engines, which they definitely don't talk about enough. An F1 car now does around 8mpg during a race, double what the old noisy ones did a decade ago, and achieves 50% thermal efficiency from what's pretty much road fuel. We are starting to see all this tech move into street cars - such as the Mercedes A45 AMG with its 450bhp 2 litre engine, and the new Ferrari SF90 hybrid, the cheapest ever 1,000bhp car at only £360k! A few more years of development will see more of the tech reach the affordable end of the car market.
Pupil premium - a mess. I note he provides no evidence for his claim ‘I believe it has been a success.’ It’s not getting where it’s needed and it’s stretching resources pretty thin elsewhere.
This was a waffly comment:
My first attempt as Education Secretary at a new history curriculum was deeply flawed, but the challenge it provoked improved on everything that had gone before. My cancellation of the Building Schools for the Future programme was a political fiasco, but it led to a method of commissioning new school buildings that saved the taxpayer billions. My proposal to bring back O-Levels strained the bonds of the 2010-2015 coalition and had to be abandoned but it led to a significant improvement in GCSE standards and school performance.
I should add that those GCSE reforms only worked because of the leadership of two outstanding public servants – Dame Glenys Stacey and Amanda Spielman – who ran the exams watchdog Ofqual at the time. They stood firm in the face of orchestrated opposition from those who wanted standards lowered, and helped end grade inflation. Exam reform was a rocky road but they made the experiment work.
The History is interesting here. The curriculum he wrote was so stuffed with content it was abandoned in toto and most schools set their own. Well, that’s OK at KS3 if they know what they’re doing. But at GCSE Because Spielman was and indeed remains totally incompetent, the criteria for ‘GCSE standards’ in History was written backwards, rendering the results for the first year effectively meaningless. I don’t think that’s ‘a significant improvement in GCSE standards.’ As for performance, given grades were pegged so they would be comparable to or better than the old GCSE, how can we draw meaningful comparisons? Such comparisons as I could draw on the data I have suggests weaker performance, which is not surprising given the uncertainty over how to grade the exams. This is compounded by the decision of at least one major board - AQA - to abandon basic standardisation procedures with so far as I can make out, OFQUAL’s full support.
If he thinks exams reform worked, he needs locking up in an asylum, and I mean that seriously. The new exams are based on essentially the same principles, but weakly drawn criteria that are not meaningfully standardised. They are on every major level a failure. A failure that we are unfortunately left to live with.
Doubly frustrating as in many important respects they are improvements, and had somebody with two brain cells or a basic understanding of pedagogy or assessment been in charge of implementing them, they could have been the resounding success he claims. Exam reform was a rocky road, that the stupidity and incompetence of Gove, Cummings and Spielman made a car crash.
If that’s what he wants to wish on us on a government wide level going forward, God help us.
I have to go. Have a good morning.
(i) Micro. Every person is unique. There are vast differences between people.
(ii) Macro. People are the same. There is no difference between them.
These 2 statements are both true.
In absolute terms I’d say that Sturgeon is pretty good too. She has great “feel” for certain things (tartan face mask was a good minor example). She is competent, which in the current climate makes her look like a colossus.
Yes, it looks like Covid19 has had a lasting effect on Johnson. He was not in good shape, and he looks in even worse condition now. That might, and probably will, matter.
That's a great pitch
Our goal is to make all Government as good as the department for education...
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/ruth-davidson-reveals-not-stand-20939026
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8466899/Paedophiles-rebrand-minor-attracted-persons-chilling-online-propaganda-drive.html
"Hundreds of disturbing accounts are being set up every day which refer to both potential and prolific abusers as ‘MAPs’ – Minor-Attracted Persons – to escape the ‘stigma’ attached to the word paedophile.
The anonymous users have even created their own rainbow ‘MAP Pride’ flag – with some arguing they should be celebrated as a niche group alongside the LGBT community."
I’ve no doubt that there will be better ways of doing the things that government has to do. I’ve been pretty critical of some of our major institutions and the people who end up at or near the top of them.
But you need to have not just a clear critique of what you don’t like but a clear idea of why things have gone wrong, the standards you expect, what you are trying to achieve and how.
“Just get out of my way” and “do what I tell you” is not such a plan.
Nor is any such plan very credible from people who have little record of actual achievement of implementation of change and positive results from such change, as @ydoethur’s posts on education regularly remind us. Nor from people who have pretty low standards of integrity.
https://www.instagram.com/p/CB-Tjx7A1qx/?igshid=1avztd2y2dtii
But then I remember people like Cummings, Jenrick and Johnson will be overseeing reform.
I'll take slowness, "wokeness" (whatever that means) and bureaucracy over that shower any day.
It has, until recently, been about wanting to get on in life without massive state intrusion. The current big government stance has been off-putting for a lot of people but ultimately it's still the party of "getting on" rather than the party of grievances like Labour. I find people who want to pin the blame of their personal failures on "society" are more open to Labour and those who want to take responsibility trend more to the Tories. That is changing because of the Tory stance on immigration, though I think there is probably some level of truth behind wage depression among the working classes because of high levels of immigration.
Overall though, I think the Labour coalition of voters is over reliant on minority voters that aren't politically aligned with them for anything that isn't very superficial. Already with working class voters we've seen Dave, then May and now Boris take huge chunks out of Labour's traditional base. Now with people like Rishi at the top of government, living proof that the party gives no fucks about someone's skin colour or background, it is already tougher for Labour to maintain the pretence that the Tories are somehow racist.
My social circle have a 'bring a gash bag' rule and we tidy not just our bit but a wider area around that. If everyone did that, it'd be fine.
It is easy to rail at “bureaucracy” in the abstract. Much harder to come up with specific examples and seek to address the underlying mischief in an intelligent and practical manner. If a government does that, hooray! Is that what this government is seeking to do? I have my doubts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Purpose_UK
Nor do I associate woke box-tickers with anything meaningful. Can you illuminate your point with some examples?
As one example: they abolished the British Railways Board. Clearly much overdue, you might think, given that the railways are privatised and BR no longer needs to exist.
Apart from, er, all the old viaducts which will actually drop on someone's head if they're not maintained (the "burdensome estate"). Which is all that the 21st century BRB ever did. Turns out they still need to be maintained.
So the entire function of the British Railways Board was transferred to the Highways Agency. Quangos nominally abolished: one. Actual effect: a load of consultation and lawyer hours to make the change, and apart from that, zero. Still, it made a nice headline one Sunday.
And incidentally, the justice system - courts, judges etc - is not “quite new” but one of the oldest institutions around. Rather older and more venerable than the Tory party let alone the UKIP-lite shower we currently have in charge.
But if Buckland leaves or is sacked then I would not be surprised to find the Tories appointing some lamentable third-rater in his place in the dishonourable tradition of Truss, Grayling and co.
DYOR
Certain geographical areas being singled out could indicates to that plans for these areas may be relatively advanced?
'We need to be more ambitious for Newcastle, for Teesside and Teesdale, for North Wales, for the North-East of Scotland, for East Lancashire and West Bromwich.'
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2020/06/if-this-government-is-to-reform-so-much-it-must-also-reform-itself-goves-speech-on-change-in-whitehall-full-text.html
Now, it's obviously much easier to identify problems rather than to offer solutions, but easy starting points are getting rid of the honours for those who have done nothing more than serve time, and employment contracts that let people be fired for poor performance, rather than simply moved around.
When you have a PM who seems happy to have his a*se photographed whilst he is lying on the the floor and then allows that photo to be splurged across the top of a leading daily.... well, to me that says a lot about his priorities.
To me he is just a watered down version of Trump. Self-obsessed, untrustworthy and out for the main chance IMO. The rest of us out here in the real world... I doubt we impinge on his consciousness at all.
I am puzzled as to which Government department might be making its way to North Wales, but I'm open to it!
“An organisation where no-one ever gets fired”. Doesn’t that very accurately describe today’s Tory government?
People who dont live in London have some very strange views about London that are not representative or accurate.
Has everyone forgotten the episode 10 or 15 years ago where the cops simply used credit card records from a confiscated child-abuse server and then arrested thousands of pedos? Operation Ore caught over 7,000 all in one go.
I like its diversity and the fact it feels young and fast-moving. Of course if you don't like that kind of thing then you're free to move out. But a lot of elderly people seem to attack London despite not living there for years.
Personally I moved away from the countryside to London because there is sod all to do!
In common with many countries the party of the government in Ireland benefited from a "rally round the flag" Corona-boost in the opinion polls, where FG surged to a 34-28 lead over SF from a 21-35 deficit.
This lead has held to the latest opinion poll a week ago, even as the emergency has receded. So, what happens now that a new government has formed, with the Taoiseach from FF?
A. Will FF see a boost as leading the government?
B. Will FG retain this support as appreciation for a job perceived to be well done?
C. Will normal politics reassert itself and SF retake the lead?
I have absolutely no idea. It will be fascinating to see. What do other people think?
So I doubt that making such payments illegal would make any difference. I'd strongly suspect that most payments to child abuse sites are via Bitcoin or similar anyway.
His blog comes across as somebody who spent half an hour Googling something and then wrote an essay on it. I've recounted before that his views on AI and technology more broadly made me laugh.
However, now that Cummings/Boris are beginning to introduce their plans, this may change. 'You are going to move the Foreign Office to North Wales, do you want the job?' is different to saying 'You are Foreign Secretary - what do you think about moving to North Wales'. It is possible that when the objectives have been clearly defined and agreed upon, the cabinet can be strengthened.
It would be a general good - but there's a very specific issue with Scottish politics that it would help to solve.
Patel talks a good game, but people are getting tired of her being appalled on a daily basis whilst nothing is done.
I don't really like much of the current cabinet due to their general lack of ability and talent but I'd have to say I don't mind Sunak.
https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689?s=21
Cummings' critique is sound, his solutions much less so, in my view. He has enormous faith in people of high mathematical talent and their ability to create working models to make better policy decisions.
Trouble is, that strategy is what, in effect, helped to cause the financial crisis of 2008.
Complex derivatives, created by people of .....er........high mathematical ability, were a major factor in the collapse of the banking system.
A bunch of people that went after Cummings in the hue and cry are about to discover that old maxim about digging two graves applies to them.
Having backed him all the way with "did nothing wrong" he can't be sacked for incompetence.
And if they keep him, Starmer gets to punch the bruise repeatedly.
https://twitter.com/ukblm/status/1277177624884850689?s=21