xsunnysuex
Life is a horizontal fall.
.
Presumably his work is unpaid. I can’t imagine anyone wanting to extract surplus value from his labour, but it’s plausible that a charity or non-profit is too scared to stop him from turning up and using their IT facilities, and setting up his campbed in the meeting room, and bathing in the kitchen sink.
Do you genuinely think the Labour government will have improved things for general public by then?I wonder what mob you’ll be supporting by 2029.
Do you genuinely think the Labour government will have improved things for general public by then?
Exactly. Vallance knows a thing or two about science investment, Timpson's bloke knows a thing or two about rehabilitation. But there is no democratic accountability.And now Chief Exec of Timpson's appointed minister of state for prisons, parole and probation within the ministry of justice.- though given a life peerage so sitting in Ho,L unlike Vallence seemingly.
TBH Timpson's are probably far, far more enlightened on prisons and offenders than 90% of the LP - but the idea of this sort of technocracy being the answer when the populist hard right have had their best election ever is bonkers.
Well, no. Things can and will get a lot worse.Would have thought so, yes. To some extent. The Conservatives have been astonishingly bad at governing. Things can only get better, as they say.
Well, no. Things can and will get a lot worse.
Liz Kendall, for a start, has boasted about it. So (not "despite that") Starmer has put her in charge of the DWP to carry out her threats. It's not because he cares about people on benefits ffs.
It's not just a single quote ffs, it their MO. Serge Forward showed you where Rachel Reeves has said the same the other day.What Kendall may or may not do on benefits needs its own discussion. And it needs to be one that teases out Labour’s approach to workless young people, its use of conditionality, and work capability assessments. It’s a discussion worth having, but let’s wait until she’s set her stall out rather than seize on a single quote.
She'll say that Mel Stride was a nasty Tory, we're not nasty Tories, we're great we are.The key thing for me is how Kendall reacts to the obvious criticisms disability charities will have of Mel Stride’s green paper on disability and health, which is currently out for consultation. That’s more important than what Reeves said in 2013.
She'll say that Mel Stride was a nasty Tory, we're not nasty Tories, we're great we are.
Will Britain be a more equal or less equal country at that point?I wonder what mob you’ll be supporting by 2029.
Right. Gotcha. you're not bothered about democracy.I find the idea that individual ministers, when drawn from the ranks of MPs, are particularly democratically accountable to be dubious in practice.
they only get voted out when, like today, the whole government loses an election.
you could say that in theory the minister for whatever could be voted out in their constituency specifically while the rest of the country votes that party back into a majority. but that's so rare as can be discounted. and really does it make sense for 1 constituency out of 650 to - entirely at random - be tasked with holding a particular brief to account while the rest of the country gets no say?
between elections ministers are accountable to the government collective, and do get sacked / made to resign for their sins*. but that applies equally to those put into the Lords instead of drawn from the Commons.
accountability to parliament rather than the electorate is a problem, as IIRC the parliamentary rules mean peers aren't allowed to answer questions in the commons and they have to delegate to an MP. but rules can be changed.
also the whole system of life peers is crazy. you become a permanent member of the legislature even after your stint as a minister is over.
we knew Labour were going to have to enoble a bunch of new peers in order to be able to get anything passed, such as the HoL reform anyway. if some of them get to bring their domain expertise to the executive too I'm not so fussed.
*sometimes
Will Britain be a more equal or less equal country at that point?
Someone earlier said that they thought it would take decades to sort out this country, it's in such a bad state, but I think a few years of genuine socialism could make a massive difference. The 1945 govt achieved a lot in five years. Willy Brandt, hardly a far left radical, also achieved a great deal in five years.
So my first question to Starmer would be "Where's the ambition?" Just some social democracy Brandt-style would be a start. But no. We have two figures from business drafted in on day one to run things. A depoliticisation of political decisions. It's the definition of technocracy, and it always results in increased inequality.
sure. that's what I saidRight. Gotcha. you're not bothered about democracy.
We're just going round and round with this and it's fruitless. Like I said, I would dearly love to be wrong.I’m sure she’ll say that, but HMG responses to formal consultation feedback tend to address the detail, point by point. And when it comes to fitness to work and the mechanisms by which disability benefits are accessed, detail is important.
The fact that he current political structures are (systematically) flawed, harmful and divorced from the overwhelming majority of people is not an argument in favour of increased technocracy but the opposite.I find the idea that individual ministers, when drawn from the ranks of MPs, are particularly democratically accountable to be dubious in practice.
they only get voted out when, like today, the whole government loses an election.
you could say that in theory the minister for whatever could be voted out in their constituency specifically while the rest of the country votes that party back into a majority. but that's so rare as can be discounted. and really does it make sense for 1 constituency out of 650 to - entirely at random - be tasked with holding a particular brief to account while the rest of the country gets no say?
between elections ministers are accountable to the government collective, and do get sacked / made to resign for their sins*. but that applies equally to those put into the Lords instead of drawn from the Commons.
accountability to parliament rather than the electorate is a problem, as IIRC the parliamentary rules mean peers aren't allowed to answer questions in the commons and they have to delegate to an MP. but rules can be changed.
also the whole system of life peers is crazy. you become a permanent member of the legislature even after your stint as a minister is over.
Er... yes actually. That's why I voted for them.Do you genuinely think the Labour government will have improved things for general public by then?
Er... yes actually. That's why I voted for them.
Things can only get better, as they say.
I would've thought that the traditional time to set one's stall out would be during an election campaign, rather than after the end of it?What Kendall may or may not do on benefits needs its own discussion. And it needs to be one that teases out Labour’s approach to workless young people, its use of conditionality, and work capability assessments. It’s a discussion worth having, but let’s wait until she’s set her stall out rather than seize on a single quote.
I would've thought that the traditional time to set one's stall out would be during an election campaign, rather than after the end of it?
They've already started ... a cabinet that is made up of 90 per cent state educated rather than 90 per cent private schoolWhat will they have done?
They've already started ... a cabinet that is made up of 90 per cent state educated rather than 90 per cent private school
They've already started ... a cabinet that is made up of 90 per cent state educated rather than 90 per cent private school
Increased spending on state education (teacher training, wages, buildings that aren't actually falling down) and VAT on private schools.That's nice, so what does that mean? Actual, material policy wise?
Who did you want to win?Unfortunately Reeves and Kendall are in there and its led by Keir "never met a pledge I couldn't ignore" Starmer.