Stop voting for fucking Tories

[tabascoboy]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

[petej]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

They badly need sometime out of power. This just sounds ridiculous.

[SaintK]

Spoiler

Show

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

They badly need sometime out of power. This just sounds ridiculous.

She obviously still thinks she's important and relevant

She’s back. Sort of. Liz Truss, a former British prime minister whose tenure lasted only 50 days, sought to revive her political career and economic agenda on Wednesday with a major speech – more than 3,500 miles from home.
Truss’s unlikely comeback attempt was perhaps guaranteed a warmer welcome at the Heritage Foundation (a somewhat stuffy conservative thinktank in Washington that has its own Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom) than at many places in her native Britain.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2 ... ndation

[sockwithaticket]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

[lemonhead]

My only curiosity is why production teams are still willing to point a camera at her.

[I like neeps]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

Couldn't agree more.

To tabascoboys point... Truss has always been like this.

[inactionman]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

[Yeeb]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

Agreed. Even a righty such as me, won’t be voting Tory this time around, not that it will make a difference as it’s the top 5 safest Tory seats with a majority of 20k+ over Libdems (who will be horribly overlooked yet again)

Whatever your political viewpoint, Tories post Dcam have now become almost as unelectable as Corbyn was.

[Deveron Boy]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

i'd go with option (iii) with dizzy lizzie every day of the week - she really lacks comprehension as was seen in the blinking eye, open mouth interview moments

[sockwithaticket]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

I suspect it's a little of all three. Being an idiot means she thinks unfettered capitalism is a good idea and the advocating for it is the route to achieving status.


Your academia comment rings true. I noticed even when a mere history student the sheer volume of incredibly specific articles in the various journals we had access to ('The impact of the printing press on indulgence sales in Bavaria 1560 - 1587' sort of stuff) or revisionist takes. The penny really dropped when we had to pick dissertaton topics and there was a real emphasis on picking a novel one or having a novel spin on something that already existed. Academics must publish, but no one's that interest in publishing orthodoxy or even further relatively novel study that reinforces orthodoxy.

[Biffer]

WTF happened to Truss and when that she become like this?

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

It's mainly iii.

She learnt her economic theory while Kwasi was shagging her. Maybe he got turned on by reciting his PhD thesis while she was sucking him off, I don't know.

[robmatic]

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

It's mainly iii.

She learnt her economic theory while Kwasi was shagging her. Maybe he got turned on by reciting his PhD thesis while she was sucking him off, I don't know.

I'm no fan of her but this seems unnecessarily misogynistic.

[GogLais]

Reading about that this morning. Pretty amusing intervention from her.

Even for an anti woke crusader that she's trying to be, this was probably not a hill you'd want to be dying on.

Politicians aren’t supposed to interfere in police operations. That’s a pretty basic point surely?

[inactionman]

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

It's mainly iii.

She learnt her economic theory while Kwasi was shagging her. Maybe he got turned on by reciting his PhD thesis while she was sucking him off, I don't know.

I'm no fan of her but this seems unnecessarily misogynistic.

Over lunch as well - the thought of Kwasi's glory face

[Hal Jordan]

She's always been a political chameleon, latching onto whatever policy, Party or sect she thought would take her to the top.

It worked, but once she got there the empty, vapid core of her intellect, charisma and general understanding of the process was revealed. Now she's gigging for the wingnuts to lay down a post Parliament gig (although her seat has proven the chimp in a blue rosette theory by both electing her and polling as likely to return her by a significant majority at the next election).

[_Os_]

It's fascinating - in a slightly gruesome way - to watch. Her and Kamikwazi just won't admit to their mistakes and it's both curious and a bit frightening.

I worked in academia for a while and it's a clear phenomenon that may researchers latch onto theories that they hope will make their name, and continue to plug them and selectively sample results despite mounting evidence showing they're nonsense. I was never sure if it was delusion or cynicism - if they keep parroting it enough, people will believe it and start to cite their work and they'll get their lovely tenured Chair.

I write this as I'm wondering if Liz Truss is (i) utterly besotted by the idea of a regulation-free economy, despite clear evidence of it fucking up the economy on her thankfully short watch or (ii) is totally cynical and just wants to be the trailblazing figurehead and fuck anyone who suffers as a result.

There is an option (iii) on the table that professional courtesy meant I didn't apply to my academic colleagues - she's just a colossal idiot.

I'm not sure any of these positions are entirely mutually independent, by the way.

I still can't really believe (perhaps more 'accept') she was ever PM. Utterly useless, highly dangerous.

It's mostly 3 but also quite a bit of 1, and they both feed off one another.

Her early life explains quite a bit of it. Her parents were lefty extremists and took her on demonstrations, she didn't end up sharing their politics, but does share their extremist style. When she was a student Lib Dem at Oxford, she was part of the most extreme wing on the Lib Dems demanding a republic and elected president (she lost the vote at the Lib Dem conference on this). By all accounts she was frustrated in the Lib Dems, at the time there was quite a large social democratic element that was forced into the Lib Dems by Labour internal battles in the 1980s, she disliked them, those that worked with her back then in Lib Dem student politics said she was uncompromising and impossible to work with. Her politics haven't really changed since she was a Lib Dem extremist, it's all about an absurd interpretation of individual liberty. Some thought went into this on her part, apparently at Oxford she was a book reading nerd that lived in the library (she wasn't out partying and riding, that came later). She's an extremist though, so she likely hasn't questioned her beliefs since. She then joins the Tories in 1996, which is an interesting move, it would be much like joining the Tories now (ie joining a sinking ship). So she's a conviction politician, just her convictions are "Thatcher was a fucking weakling and didn't go far enough". I Googled each person in her team when she became PM, quite a few had a similar trajectory of "Lib Dem extremist > Tory party > IEA and Tufton Street dark money stooges".

There's then some interesting bits about how she even became an MP. contested an unwinnable seat in the 2001 GE. 2005 GE tried to become a candidate in multiple seats, failed, eventually became a candidate in a winnable seat, then lost again in that election. Then Cameron becomes Tory leader and he wants more women and racial minority candidates, she is put on his "A List" (basically candidates to be parachuted into safe or winnable seats) she ends up becoming a candidate on an all woman short list in a Tory safe seat, for the 2010 GE (but the Tories say it's a coincidence there were only women candidates and they weren't copying Labour ...). Gets elected then starts her ministerial career in 2012, having spent no time at all in local government and only 2 years on the backbenches, having been rejected by multiple Tory branches to be their candidate (it's a very high number that's hard to track down, because of the nature of those elections, but above 5), and losing 2 of the 3 elections she had contested. In the end every informal element of the UK's electoral system was broken to get her into government.

Being brutal she's an Affirmative Action appointee much like Braverman. The interesting part about her, is there's clearly a political background there and some coherent political thought. Problem is she's extreme, so whatever intelligence she had is entirely destroyed by the extremism. She ends up being a moron with a series of simple (and wrong) answers, no one needs to go to Oxford to get answers so simplistic they're moronic. Something similar is going on with Kamikwasi Kwarteng.

Extremists do seem absurdly cynical looking in from outside the cult. But in their own minds they're the good guys.

[_Os_]

Fucking moron. We've got the most predatory and crony capitalist model of my lifetime at the moment in the UK and that has caused stagnation, not whatever makey-uppy lefty conspiracy nonsense she either believes or is jumping on the back of in a bid for relevance. Funnily enough when the nation's wealth is concentrated into fewer and fewer hands, that really don't need it, the economy stagnates. It's the masses making endless small to medium transactions daily that stimulate an economy, not an occasional luxury yacht purchase. Keep squeezing and low-balling such that all we can spend on is the essentials and that's what the economy will dwindle to.

Agreed. Even a righty such as me, won’t be voting Tory this time around, not that it will make a difference as it’s the top 5 safest Tory seats with a majority of 20k+ over Libdems (who will be horribly overlooked yet again)

Whatever your political viewpoint, Tories post Dcam have now become almost as unelectable as Corbyn was.

At risk of making two Lib Dem posts in a row. They may have fucked themselves.

Lib Dems did okay in 2019 went from 2.4m votes in 2017 to 3.7m votes in 2019, they had the largest upward vote swing (the Tories only added 300k votes in 2019 compared to 2017). This didn't translate into seats, but it was looking healthy in terms of voters. This was done on a core Lib Dem platform which included constitutional reform and being pro-EU.

The logical path would've been to build on that platform and adding something that appeals to voters under 50 years old who are more likely to agree with those core Lib Dem positions (house building and attacking planning laws, being the obvious move). Instead they've decided to target older disillusioned Tory voters (like your good self), with talk of "making Brexit work" (lol) and NIMBYism. They've decided to actively be a temporary home for Tories, there's always been an element of that with them, but they've never leaned into it like this before. The polling shows how bad this is becoming for them, when Labour have a leader that's acceptable to most people, this should boost the Lib Dem vote (because there's no fear of Labour being in power, so people who would vote Tory to keep Labour out switch to the Lib Dems). Instead people are switching from the Tories directly to Labour. I think it's because the Lib Dems aren't offering much distinctive.

What the Lib Dems haven't abandoned Labour have stolen. Labour now sound more credible than the Lib Dems on constitutional reform, which is remarkable given the time the Lib Dems have devoted to that topic over decades.

The Greens are a real danger to the Lib Dems now. They're not just a single issue party, they're the most green, most pro-EU, and most left wing. It took both the Lib Dems and Labour to gift the Greens that much space. They could become like a leftie version of UKIP and cause a lot of disruption.

Maybe the Lib Dems will get more seats next time. Seems like they've thrown it all away to me though, there's not as much difference between the amount of votes it takes to win 10 or 20 or 50 seats as most people think. All of those outcomes (which the Lib Dems see as bad/good/excellent), are in reality a failure. They would've been better going with something really bold and sticking to it (like the SNP/Greens/UKIP). But they think they're a big party so play the same games Labour and the Tories do, to try and win 20 to 50 seats, could end up paying and becoming the 4th or 5th largest party (depending how it's counted, seats or votes). The problem with targeting disillusioned Tories, is people like your good self will be voting Tory again soon enough, then the Lib Dems have to start over again.

Almost all the Lib Dem's winnable seats are Tory facing, so a lot of voters now have a choice between two versions of the Tories. If that Lib Dem strategy fails, they end up helping the Tories win seats and boosting the vote share of Labour and the Greens. The FPTP system doesn't really allow the Lib Dems to be a version of the Tories, when nearly all the Lib Dem winnable seats are Tory facing, because FPTP makes sure each seat is eventually sorted into a contest between two opposites. If enough people in Tory/Lib Dem seats decide "they're both the same, I'm going to 'waste my vote' on Labour/Greens" then maybe the time after that it's a Tory/Greens seat. Polling is showing this could happen.

[C69]

So the NHS staff council meets on May 2nd and it looks like Rishi et al will be faced with the RCN probably rejecting the latest pay offer if reports are to be believed.
This being the most conservative of Unions in the NHS
If correct then the main pledge from Rishi regarding hospital waiting times and appointments will be thrown down the drain.
Interesting. The vote is apparently on a knife edge and the RCN leadership are stalling on reporting the outcome.


Update Unison voted for the deal as expected and the RCN voted against. Against union leadership advice.
It will be interesting to see what the CSP outcome is.

The schism in the NHS staff council caused by the leadership of the RCN over the proposed breaking of AFC terms and conditions with a new nursing pay spine will be interesting.

The RCN are seen as a pariah now and the vote to reject is a big fuck you to their leadership.

[dpedin]

So the NHS staff council meets on May 2nd and it looks like Rishi et al will be faced with the RCN probably rejecting the latest pay offer if reports are to be believed.
This being the most conservative of Unions in the NHS
If correct then the main pledge from Rishi regarding hospital waiting times and appointments will be thrown down the drain.
Interesting. The vote is apparently on a knife edge and the RCN leadership are stalling on reporting the outcome.


Update Unison voted for the deal as expected and the RCN voted against. Against union leadership advice.
It will be interesting to see what the CSP outcome is.

The schism in the NHS staff council caused by the leadership of the RCN over the proposed breaking of AFC terms and conditions with a new nursing pay spine will be interesting.

The RCN are seen as a pariah now and the vote to reject is a big fuck you to their leadership.

Dont disagree with analysis but they will bury the hatchet in order to get rid of this shitty Health Secretary and Government first, a common hated enemy is always a more appealing target. They are aware the Gov will try and play on the perceived 'split' and try and widen the gap between them but I fully expect a cohesive front agreed by all the unions. Dont underestimate how much they hate this current Gov.

[C69]

So the NHS staff council meets on May 2nd and it looks like Rishi et al will be faced with the RCN probably rejecting the latest pay offer if reports are to be believed.
This being the most conservative of Unions in the NHS
If correct then the main pledge from Rishi regarding hospital waiting times and appointments will be thrown down the drain.
Interesting. The vote is apparently on a knife edge and the RCN leadership are stalling on reporting the outcome.


Update Unison voted for the deal as expected and the RCN voted against. Against union leadership advice.
It will be interesting to see what the CSP outcome is.

The schism in the NHS staff council caused by the leadership of the RCN over the proposed breaking of AFC terms and conditions with a new nursing pay spine will be interesting.

The RCN are seen as a pariah now and the vote to reject is a big fuck you to their leadership.

Dont disagree with analysis but they will bury the hatchet in order to get rid of this shitty Health Secretary and Government first, a common hated enemy is always a more appealing target. They are aware the Gov will try and play on the perceived 'split' and try and widen the gap between them but I fully expect a cohesive front agreed by all the unions. Dont underestimate how much they hate this current Gov.

I suspect the RCN leader will now go with her tail between her legs and seek forgiveness in private.
If all other unions, a big if agree with the deal then it will be very interesting as the NHS staff council will be voting on it.

[sefton]

Did I read that right that Thatcher in drag, Yeeb, is not going to vote Tory?

[Blackmac]

Jesus, the Tory dickhead Greg Hands, who has wheeled out to defend their offer to the nurses is actually referring to notes written on the palms of his hands and is repeating it ad nauseum regardless of the question.

[_Os_]

Not sure why Labour are playing the we'll be tougher on illegal immigration than Tories line. They'll never be more hateful (although they might try). And what do they think will happen? Illegal immigration to the UK is small part of people escaping conflict and climate breakdown across ME and Africa coming into Europe. Neither of the parties will "fix it". The press who have turned up Patel, will turn on Braverman will absolutely savage whoever Labour's Home Sec is too.

I don't think pointing out Tory failure by their own criteria and 'process claims quicker and send back people who don't have a genuine claim to be here' = an avowed intent to be tougher on illegal migrants than the Tories.

As attack lines that don't actually propose your own policy go, it wasn't a bad one.

On another tack, a non-insignificant portion of Labour's traditional support base do have what could generously be termed as concerns about immigration. That can't be ignored if power is sought, it's the sort of emotive issue which has turned votes.

Neeps is correct.

As soon as Labour are in power much of the print media (which is strongly Tory) will start attacking Labour on immigration. They've only stopped moaning as much because it's reached all time highs under the Tories, and the change in composition (more non-EU) is entirely about Brexit, the same Tories and Brexit they support. As soon as Labour are in power, it's going to be like a greatest hits of blaming Labour for immigration and a tabloid frontpage obsession. The fact that mass migration into the UK started before Labour won in 1997 and increased after they lost in 2010, will not matter. It's a discussion that happens in a Tory alternate reality, they don't care about immigration it's just a means of getting every bigot/racist to support them. Labour can never win on this, because the discussion is about Labour losing.

I've been wondering about this clear tactic of Labour to attack the Tories from the right. The last month has been a shit show with the Tories trying to 'win' various immigration and race based arguments they've largely instigated themselves. I've seen some in the comments starting to say stuff like "the Tories lied and changed nothing, but it'll be worse under Labour".

The Tories have also been polling at 30% with different pollsters over the last few weeks, one even had them at 35% last month. There's a clear downtick for Labour an uptick for the Tories:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_p ... l_election

So I looked on the YouGov tracking poll, where people list the following areas in order of importance: health, immigration, crime, the economy, tax, pensions, education, family/childcare, housing, the environment, Brexit, transport, welfare, defence, none of these, don't know, Afghanistan, terrorism.
Looking through every demographic the following now say immigration is the most important issue facing the UK (listing it first or joint first): those aged 65+, 2019 Tory voters, Leave voters.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/education/t ... period=1yr

They've managed something I didn't think possible, they're succeeding in using immigration against Labour, whilst they're still in power and totally responsible for this issue. Unbelievable. Looks like the next year and half is going to be dominated by the "immigration debate", if the Tories can so easily pump up their polling exploiting it. It's now so detached from reality, if it stays in the news cycle for a few weeks there's a pavlovian response, some immediately place it as their top concern and get behind the Tories. Crazy.

[salanya]

I'm not necessarily against Rishi's push for better maths skills, though languages (especially good English) are just as important. And surely it's quality over quantity; if by 17 you haven't picked up maths knowledge, an extra 6-9 months isn't going to make much of a difference.

Anyway, surely he's got much bigger fish to catch, let alone fry?
The economy is still a mess, further undermined by the strikes he isn't addressing.
Healthcare is in a pickle, transport projects keep getting altered and go over budget, many people struggle to afford to feed their kids properly and there is no devolved government in Northern Ireland, just to name a few things.

Maybe he should spend some more time on those issues, rather than to create a nation of mini-Rishis just because he worked in finance (and married a millionaire heiress, so needs to able to manipulate his tax workings)...

[Mahoney]

I'd say it's focus that matters. Most of us don't use calculus in our day to day lives. Most of us don't use trigonometry. Basic algebra is obviously useful to understanding almost anything though.

The really big one is statistics. Stats are simultaneously the best way of understanding the world (without them you just have loads of misleading anecdotes) and one of the easiest ways to mislead people, either intentionally or accidentally. A really good grounding in spotting dodgy statistics, or dodgy graphical representations of statistics, would be very useful. The pandemic has shown that a good grasp of bayes theorem would be useful too.

Also things like compound interest, percentages generally and how they can be abused / misunderstood; the sort of thing that affects both individual and political decision making routinely in life.

[Paddington Bear]

I'm not necessarily against Rishi's push for better maths skills, though languages (especially good English) are just as important. And surely it's quality over quantity; if by 17 you haven't picked up maths knowledge, an extra 6-9 months isn't going to make much of a difference.

Anyway, surely he's got much bigger fish to catch, let alone fry?
The economy is still a mess, further undermined by the strikes he isn't addressing.
Healthcare is in a pickle, transport projects keep getting altered and go over budget, many people struggle to afford to feed their kids properly and there is no devolved government in Northern Ireland, just to name a few things.

Maybe he should spend some more time on those issues, rather than to create a nation of mini-Rishis just because he worked in finance (and married a millionaire heiress, so needs to able to manipulate his tax workings)...

Yes, there's a very strong argument that the English curriculum attempts to do too much with finite resources. As a result we churn out a lot of people who are utterly useless numerically and, more concerningly, have a very poor command of the English language. In my old job working with a lot of Germans I recall vividly their bemusement when I explained that the management level people at our client weren't using English words they didn't understand, they just couldn't spell as well as the German guys could. Ask a lot of Brits with decent levels of education to tell you the difference between a verb and a noun, or calculate a percentage. Most would need to google it, you can't tell me this isn't an issue.

There's all sorts of issues in education and one size doesn't fit all by any means, however a more numerate nation is likely to be a more prosperous one in the future, even at the margins. With a whole education department and a secretary of state, it ought to be possible for Sunak to insist this is a government priority, delegate it and then focus on other issues. I just simply don't get the 'maths makes you a robot' stuff - if you think school shouldn't make kids do stuff that they find hard I'm not sure where we go from there, from my perspective (not a unique one) my preferred school was always no school at all!

As for 'because he has a finance background' - financial services is one of the backbones of our economy! Providing a higher standard of future employee for it is a good thing!

[salanya]

Paddington: fair response which I'm not arguing with.

My point is more that Rishi made his case for better maths several weeks ago. He should now let the ministry of education get on with this and work out ideas to implement it, and Rishi should focus on the imminent issues for the country.

[tabascoboy]

I'd say it's focus that matters. Most of us don't use calculus in our day to day lives. Most of us don't use trigonometry. Basic algebra is obviously useful to understanding almost anything though.

The really big one is statistics. Stats are simultaneously the best way of understanding the world (without them you just have loads of misleading anecdotes) and one of the easiest ways to mislead people, either intentionally or accidentally. A really good grounding in spotting dodgy statistics, or dodgy graphical representations of statistics, would be very useful. The pandemic has shown that a good grasp of bayes theorem would be useful too.

Also things like compound interest, percentages generally and how they can be abused / misunderstood; the sort of thing that affects both individual and political decision making routinely in life.

I'd agree with this, after a certain point of proficiency in the 'basics' you are just getting into the realms of applied maths which I certainly haven't used since 'A' level exam days nearly 50 years ago! Of course that is very useful to some in their further studies or professions, I won't deny, but forcing more complex maths on those with lower aptitude levels only to set them up for exams which they will struggle with seems pointless.

So it could be that a two-tier approach is need, at a certain point if the aptitude for complex maths just isn't there then focus the lessons on ensuring the retention of good numeracy and why it is valuable post education for daily life and understanding concepts like stats even if you just end up in an Amazon warehouse, burger bar or beauty salon. However the way that the education system is at the moment could it actually be done without investment in more teachers?

You'd have to hope that special advisors would be able to channel this into useful policy rather than simply another box to tick for agenda driven, narrow minded politicians

[C69]

So where are the Tories going to get all these nurses doctors and teachers from?

What a bunch of chancers

[I like neeps]

So where are the Tories going to get all these nurses doctors and teachers from?

What a bunch of chancers

Yeah exactly - more of a focus on maths and related disciplines e.g. statistics is essential for the future economy. It will never be delivered as the Tories can't train or retain teachers especially so in technical disciplines related to maths, computing, sciences etc.

No issue with the policy, the issue is with how it won't be delivered.

[fishfoodie]

I'd say it's focus that matters. Most of us don't use calculus in our day to day lives. Most of us don't use trigonometry. Basic algebra is obviously useful to understanding almost anything though.

The really big one is statistics. Stats are simultaneously the best way of understanding the world (without them you just have loads of misleading anecdotes) and one of the easiest ways to mislead people, either intentionally or accidentally. A really good grounding in spotting dodgy statistics, or dodgy graphical representations of statistics, would be very useful. The pandemic has shown that a good grasp of bayes theorem would be useful too.

Also things like compound interest, percentages generally and how they can be abused / misunderstood; the sort of thing that affects both individual and political decision making routinely in life.

I'd agree with this, after a certain point of proficiency in the 'basics' you are just getting into the realms of applied maths which I certainly haven't used since 'A' level exam days nearly 50 years ago! Of course that is very useful to some in their further studies or professions, I won't deny, but forcing more complex maths on those with lower aptitude levels only to set them up for exams which they will struggle with seems pointless.

So it could be that a two-tier approach is need, at a certain point if the aptitude for complex maths just isn't there then focus the lessons on ensuring the retention of good numeracy and why it is valuable post education for daily life and understanding concepts like stats even if you just end up in an Amazon warehouse, burger bar or beauty salon. However the way that the education system is at the moment could it actually be done without investment in more teachers?

You'd have to hope that special advisors would be able to channel this into useful policy rather than simply another box to tick for agenda driven, narrow minded politicians

You're proposing streaming, & I completely agree, but you'd be strung up in the streets if you suggested it to a lot of parents !

It's one thing the politically correct mob got completely wrong.

[dpedin]

What a shame for the owners! Love the photo of Cruella in the BBC article - seems to have grown a pair of horns?

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-essex-65297070

[Rhubarb & Custard]

So where are the Tories going to get all these nurses doctors and teachers from?

What a bunch of chancers

Yeah exactly - more of a focus on maths and related disciplines e.g. statistics is essential for the future economy. It will never be delivered as the Tories can't train or retain teachers especially so in technical disciplines related to maths, computing, sciences etc.

No issue with the policy, the issue is with how it won't be delivered.

As we see with 'smart' motorways they'll try to get something without paying for it.

So with Sunak twice announcing the plan to expanded compulsory mathematics, which fwiw I actually agree with, when there's already a shortage of maths teachers and in twice announcing the plan not once giving an indication as to how there's little hope this goes well. We could well get some absurd, and likely pathetic, extension to what FE colleges are required to do and that's it, so even a good idea will be done badly.

[tabascoboy]

Well, in other news

Rishi Sunak investigated over declaration of interest

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is being investigated by Parliament's standards watchdog over a possible failure to declare an interest.

Mr Sunak is being investigated over whether a declaration of interest was "open and frank", under rules set out by the commissioner for standards.

The BBC understands the probe relates to a childcare firm his wife has shares in.

The commissioner decides whether an MP has broken rules after an inquiry.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: "We are happy to assist the commissioner to clarify how this has been transparently declared as a ministerial interest."
.
An update on the commissioner's website says Mr Sunak is being investigated under paragraph 6 of code of conduct for MPs.

The paragraph reads: "Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its committees, and in any communications with ministers, members, public officials or public office holders."

The commissioner for standards is an independent officer who investigates allegations that MPs have breached Parliament's code of conduct.

Following investigation, if the watchdog thinks the allegation represents a breach of the code, they can put such cases before MPs sitting on the Committee on Standards, who can decide any sanctions.
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65301099

[C69]

Well, in other news

Rishi Sunak investigated over declaration of interest

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak is being investigated by Parliament's standards watchdog over a possible failure to declare an interest.

Mr Sunak is being investigated over whether a declaration of interest was "open and frank", under rules set out by the commissioner for standards.

The BBC understands the probe relates to a childcare firm his wife has shares in.

The commissioner decides whether an MP has broken rules after an inquiry.

A Downing Street spokesperson said: "We are happy to assist the commissioner to clarify how this has been transparently declared as a ministerial interest."
.
An update on the commissioner's website says Mr Sunak is being investigated under paragraph 6 of code of conduct for MPs.

The paragraph reads: "Members must always be open and frank in declaring any relevant interest in any proceeding of the House or its committees, and in any communications with ministers, members, public officials or public office holders."

The commissioner for standards is an independent officer who investigates allegations that MPs have breached Parliament's code of conduct.

Following investigation, if the watchdog thinks the allegation represents a breach of the code, they can put such cases before MPs sitting on the Committee on Standards, who can decide any sanctions.
.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-65301099

Sickening smearing

[Hal Jordan]

The current bar for a Conservative MP appears to be "Murder" and I think it would still be labelled a woke lefty plot to oust a victim of tragic circumstances.

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

[Paddington Bear]

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

I hated maths at school. In fact, I hated just about every aspect of school, every subject, nearly everyone there etc etc. I posted this above but my preference was never to go to school if offered at the time, and I know I'm far from alone in that. So it isn't really relevant what kids do or don't want to do at school - some people (wildly overrepresented in politics) enjoyed the academic side of school, for most it was somewhere between a chore, a grind, and torture.

The real question is - what do we think are the key skills schools should be equipping children with? For me there's three broad areas schools can and should focus on:
- literacy
- numeracy
- physical fitness

Really everything else flows from those three IMHO.

AIUI the proposal is not mandatory maths A level, rather mandatory maths education to 18, which is different. We are very unusual globally in not insisting on it.

[yermum]

Should have happened 20 years ago.

With the advent of ai there is a possibility of lots of numerical skills becoming obsolete quickly. Who uses a slide Rule these days?

Soft skills are much maligned but I can imagine a near future where they are key.

Ai can diagnose an illness but the human touch in breaking the news to someone will always be needed.

[petej]

As for Maths, sat GCSE twice, got a C both times and would have loathed having to do it as an A Level.

I hated maths at school. In fact, I hated just about every aspect of school, every subject, nearly everyone there etc etc. I posted this above but my preference was never to go to school if offered at the time, and I know I'm far from alone in that. So it isn't really relevant what kids do or don't want to do at school - some people (wildly overrepresented in politics) enjoyed the academic side of school, for most it was somewhere between a chore, a grind, and torture.

The real question is - what do we think are the key skills schools should be equipping children with? For me there's three broad areas schools can and should focus on:
- literacy
- numeracy
- physical fitness

Really everything else flows from those three IMHO.

AIUI the proposal is not mandatory maths A level, rather mandatory maths education to 18, which is different. We are very unusual globally in not insisting on it.

I resent the education focus on the young. If I was discussing something scientific the young people I know are far more likely to understand it than the old people i know. The last 7 years indicates that the stupidity and gullibility of the old should be discussed not that conmen in the media ever will. I still think without a cap on voting age the voting age should be lowered to 14. I can well recall my parents behaviour to my greatest generation grandparents and think there is a real need to fucking call out the older generations bullshit. We are too nice to our parents and grandparents. How about compulsory remedial maths for the over 65s before they can vote. "From the ons data has annual immigration decreased in the last 10 years?"

"Looking at this data order the average median wage for these European countries over the last 10years. When will the median wage in Poland be expected to be higher than the UK?"

[Line6 HXFX]

Look employers want maths this year, then in three or four years (when everyone is math tastic) employers will want more apprenticeships, then when everyone is doing that, employers will want vocational qualifications, then the year after it will be back academic qualifications again. Then internships.



Employers do not want, and never will want to employ this years batch of school and college leavers, but want all the say in the education system (as they have had for the last 60 years).

They want all the power but don't want to be responsible or accountable for their bullshit, by having to employ anyone.

Rightwing Politicians will always blame the education system, as it is a way of blaming people for being poor, in a society with massive raging inequalities.

This is why they and the CBI and employers move the goalposts every year.

You will never be good enough.
Always not what they need.
Imagine if you were and they HAD to employ you?
"Well done kids, finally after 900 years, you are finally what we have been asking for...but we are not going to employ you because well... we can't.
No jobs see.

They are just taking the piss.

[media] [/media]