UK Politics: Striking at the heart of the nation

[Spockydog]

Inspirational stuff...

Labour would keep two-child benefit cap, says Keir Starmer

Quote

 

Keir Starmer has confirmed that a Labour government would keep the Conservatives’ controversial two-child benefits cap, despite unease among his top team and leading academics over the policy, which has been blamed for pushing families into poverty.

Starmer said on Sunday that he was “not changing that policy”, when asked if he would scrap it if Labour wins the next election. His shadow work and pensions secretary, Jonathan Ashworth, had condemned it as “heinous” just last month.

 

 

[Raja]

Found this an interesting article on Starmer & Labour, withthe proviso that they do win the election

Quote

Starmer is relatively new to politics: his understanding of his own side’s history and essential political theologies often seems flimsy and cliched. So, by way of a reminder: whoever is in charge of it, the basic reason his party is different from the Conservatives lies in its century-old understanding that when it comes to poverty, inequality and all our other enduring social ills, “growth”, the animal spirits of the financial markets and the “spirit of enterprise” tend to offer insufficient answers, to say the least. The public sector exists for precisely that reason, and when it is in crisis, the fundamental reason is always to do with political choices to starve it of money. Here, though, Starmer offers another ideological about-turn: an insistence that what is needed is “reform” – not just because there is allegedly no new funding available, but because even if there was, to spend it would be to “simply service failure”.

Right now, Labour is emphasising two contradictory ideas. With one voice, it tells us that we cannot go on like this; but it then changes register, and suggests that is exactly what we are going to have to do. The howling tension between the two brings to mind a celebrated quotation from the Welsh thinker and writer Raymond Williams: “To be truly radical is to make hope possible, rather than despair convincing.” If Starmer and his team fail that test, they will only deserve all the noise and disruption that will thereby be let loose. So far, it has to be said, the signs are not good.

Streeting's comments recently do seem to echo the 'despair convincing' line

[Spockydog]

The emperor's new clothes are starting to fall off.

 

Edited July 16, 2023 by Spockydog

[BigFatCoward]

On 7/15/2023 at 3:06 PM, James Arryn said:

Serious question for you, not trying to catch you up, I’ve often argued that policing is important enough to raise the training/requirements but also the pay. My assumption is that the latter in particular should reduce things like moonlighting burnout, corruption and the like. From your POV, forgetting for a moment where the money will come from, do you think that’s correct? And I mean significant reduction, not marginal. Is that pie in the sky?

Recruitment is terrible, because the pay is terrible, and the training is garbage because its cheaper to do the bare minimum.  

When i joined 22 years ago the recruitment was intense, 2 full days of assessments and interviews, out of about 20 people who were on my assessment centre only 3 got through, then 18 weeks of really intense residential training, if you weren't up to it they kicked you out.  Then you got another 10 weeks of on the streets 121 supervision by a very experienced officer.  Then for the rest of your  probation/first 2 years you had regular training and were supported through your development, again if you weren't up to it they managed you either to resolve your issues or out the door.  There were loads of experienced officers with 15-20 years service to look up to and learn from, now most response teams senior officers are 7-8 years. 

Also when i joined i was one of the youngest in my class at 24, everyone had real life experience in other jobs, kids, mortgages etc.  Now everyone is a child, people with real world experience cant afford the step back in salary.  

Now we just count the limbs and drag people in off the streets, you cannot recruit quality when you pay piss wages, my take home 20 years ago was only a few grand less than it is now for new recruits (before our new pay rise). 

Also, who wants to join a job where everyone hates you but you aren't looked after, its not my fault that a significant minority of officers are a fucking disgrace, i didn't do it.  The NHS has had loads of serial killers, nobody seems to hold that against other doctors and nurses. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by BigFatCoward

[The Anti-Targ]

The neolib straight jacket, handcuffs and ankle chains have firm control over the politicians of our nations. A shame too many of them like the feel of those strictures.

[Spockydog]

 

[Spockydog]

Not my mayor, but I gave him a tenner anyway.

ETA: Smashed his target in less than half a day.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Spockydog

[James Arryn]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Recruitment is terrible, because the pay is terrible, and the training is garbage because its cheaper to do the bare minimum.  

When i joined 22 years ago the recruitment was intense, 2 full days of assessments and interviews, out of about 20 people who were on my assessment centre only 3 got through, then 18 weeks of really intense residential training, if you weren't up to it they kicked you out.  Then you got another 10 weeks of on the streets 121 supervision by a very experienced officer.  Then for the rest of your  probation/first 2 years you had regular training and were supported through your development, again if you weren't up to it they managed you either to resolve your issues or out the door.  There were loads of experienced officers with 15-20 years service to look up to and learn from, now most response teams senior officers are 7-8 years. 

Also when i joined i was one of the youngest in my class at 24, everyone had real life experience in other jobs, kids, mortgages etc.  Now everyone is a child, people with real world experience cant afford the step back in salary.  

Now we just count the limbs and drag people in off the streets, you cannot recruit quality when you pay piss wages, my take home 20 years ago was only a few grand less than it is now for new recruits (before our new pay rise). 

Also, who wants to join a job where everyone hates you but you aren't looked after, its not my fault that a significant minority of officers are a fucking disgrace, i didn't do it.  The NHS has had loads of serial killers, nobody seems to hold that against other doctors and nurses. 

Much appreciated, and apologies for the insensitivity of the way I phrased the question. It’s not like I forgot this was your everyday life I was asking about like it’s an interesting academic curiosity. Not meant that way, but upon re-read I can see it potentially coming across that way. Anyways, to your response, are there any solutions that you see? Because it seems like your frustration is in part with the futility of trying to help with increasingly little wherewithal to do so.

About the perception, I agree that medical people statistically are also abnormally high when it comes to serial killers…sorry, I missed if the discussion was about this specific aspect, but it is a real thing so if I’m just rehashing let me know…without the concurrent communal perceptual disgrace. I am not sure why that is. Otoh, I am not sure if that is the primary cause for antipathy to the police, or rather more contributing to the perpetual slide. I know there’s a ton of Met shit right now so that might be bigger in your frame than mine over here in Canada.
 

My own explanation for med people and cops being statistically high in serial killers is it makes perfect sense, in three ways. First and highest, predators go where the prey is vulnerable, if you get me. Second, though somewhat linked, both professions come with a lot of control over others and that’s a lot of what attracts serial killer personality types in a general sense, so pretty baked-in imo. Third, if you take your average latent serial killer, and constantly expose them to suffering and carnage and destroyed bodies, etc. I’m sure that kind of immersion has to raise the potential development. And then allow for those serial killers who are mostly nurture, well, two pretty desensitizing fields, no way around it. 
 

So I guess my own ~solution to this aspect would be to be self-aware of these heightened probabilities via procedure, for example include more randomized internal checks, eliminate the capacity for problematic employees to just keep moving locales, ie red flag the fuck out of incidents worthy of suspension/termination even if that’s asking mid-level civil servants to prioritize public safety over public relations and deal with the activities the same way you would if a member of the public wandered in and ‘accidentally’ administered lethal doses of insulin, for example. Which they’re unlikely to do. 
 

And more relevant to police than medicine, the ~ morality neutralizing effect of the us vs. them besieged mentality that in my experience come as an extreme if understandable bi-product of the culture/realities of the profession, that’s imo a direct factor but I have no idea how to change that, it’s part of the engine. I think maybe look at countries where there is less of that and see what they’re doing better. I think on the service to force spectrum the UK is closer to the ideal than the US, possibly Canada even, so that’s gotta help. But otherwise…er, you MUST hit a quota of non-police related friends? You must see the worst of humanity but not think it? Like I don’t know how you correct for these things, mechanically. Possibility my perception here is even out of date, and that social networking has reduced the herd/pack mentality. That would also be encouraging. 

But for police who are guilty-by-association the latter might help with what must be very mixed feelings about your role, your relationship with the public, etc. ie not feeling the professional collectivity would also reduce the sense of collective guilt and therefore make the ‘fuck you, don’t stereotype me because of my profession’ feeling/expression come easier and less qualified. But can the job be done without that sense of kinship, and ~ isolation from those who don’t live that life? I doubt it. Soldiers eventually come home, cops have already internalized coming home and going back as part of the process. Oh, should have been said earlier, feel free at any time to remind me I was apologizing earlier for musing about your day to day reality like it’s an essay subject, or thinking that I have any credibility dissecting a profession from the outside. I am really not thinking that way, it’s just a tone my writing takes while I’m writing while trying to think something through. I can fuck off about this anytime you like, in other words. But if anything I’ve said strikes a chord, all the better. 
 

But getting back to medicine and policing, for the reasons I think both professions are always going to be attractive to serial killer types, that’s just part of how they’re wired. Society gives more power to roles society deems need that power to help it. And that power itself becomes an asset/attraction to certain personality types. Usually in more benign ways, but the effects of a collection of those attracted thus are imo inevitable. Again, increased self-policing (I mean as a profession, not heart searching, lol) in a observational/patrolling type of way rather than just post-incidental process way makes it more dangerous and therefore mostly less attractive to that type of mind. But it adds more potential headaches to everyone else in the service, so I doubt it’ll be well received. Might not even survive legal objection or union protest. 

Edited July 17, 2023 by James Arryn

[Derfel Cadarn]

6 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

Recruitment is terrible, because the pay is terrible, and the training is garbage because its cheaper to do the bare minimum.  

When i joined 22 years ago the recruitment was intense, 2 full days of assessments and interviews, out of about 20 people who were on my assessment centre only 3 got through, then 18 weeks of really intense residential training, if you weren't up to it they kicked you out.  Then you got another 10 weeks of on the streets 121 supervision by a very experienced officer.  Then for the rest of your  probation/first 2 years you had regular training and were supported through your development, again if you weren't up to it they managed you either to resolve your issues or out the door.  There were loads of experienced officers with 15-20 years service to look up to and learn from, now most response teams senior officers are 7-8 years. 

Also when i joined i was one of the youngest in my class at 24, everyone had real life experience in other jobs, kids, mortgages etc.  Now everyone is a child, people with real world experience cant afford the step back in salary.  

Now we just count the limbs and drag people in off the streets, you cannot recruit quality when you pay piss wages, my take home 20 years ago was only a few grand less than it is now for new recruits (before our new pay rise). 

Also, who wants to join a job where everyone hates you but you aren't looked after, its not my fault that a significant minority of officers are a fucking disgrace, i didn't do it.  The NHS has had loads of serial killers, nobody seems to hold that against other doctors and nurses. 

To be fair, Harold Shipman’s fellow doctors weren’t hiding evidence and claiming he couldn’t have killed all those people because he was a cracking GP

Edited July 17, 2023 by Derfel Cadarn

[Spockydog]

He needs a few good, hard punches to his whisky-addled face. Just another lying Tory cunt, who will say anything to get elected.

 

 

Edited July 17, 2023 by Spockydog

[Spockydog]

 

 

[Gaston de Foix]

@Spockydog: I read this and wondered what you would make of it.  https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n15/james-butler/short-cuts

[Spockydog]

1 hour ago, Gaston de Foix said:

@Spockydog: I read this and wondered what you would make of it.  https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v45/n15/james-butler/short-cuts

Yeah, I stopped reading after this paragraph.

"The degree of vituperation with which Starmer is greeted on the left tends to depend on the degree of personal attachment to Corbyn, and can lead to strange conclusions – that Starmer’s past deceits will eventually cause him to unravel, or that Corbyn should have led the righteous out of the party immediately after his defeat. It seems likely that most people will continue to greet Starmer’s changes of course with a shrug, dismissing them as the result of party wrangling, and the notion of his special dishonesty as an idée fixe held by embittered losers. ‘Politician lies’ is, in any case, the definitive dog-bites-man story."

Oh, do fuck off.

Edited July 17, 2023 by Spockydog

[Spockydog]

*reaches for jumbo pack of popcorn*

GB News Star Dan Wootton Unmasked in Cash-for-Sexual Images Catfishing Scandal

In the first part of its three-year special investigation, Byline Times reveals the accounts of victims targeted by the powerful TV presenter

Quote

GB News presenter and MailOnline columnist Dan Wootton hid behind fake online identities to trick and bribe scores of men into revealing compromising sexual material, Byline Times can reveal in the first part of a three-year special investigation.

The 40-year-old broadcaster and self-styled voice against ‘woke’ culture – whose show Dan Wootton Tonight is the biggest ratings winner on the UK’s fourth-most watched news channel – targeted journalistic colleagues, friends and members of the public for at least 10 years.

Byline Times has extensive evidence to show that, between June 2008 and 2018, Wootton – who is gay – posed as a fictitious showbusiness agent called “Martin Branning” to offer sums of up to £30,000 “tax free” to his targets, many of whom were heterosexual men.

Among them are a very senior executive at Rupert Murdoch’s News UK alongside at least six other staff at The Sun newspaper – one with close links to News UK CEO Rebekah Brooks – friends, Facebook associates and users of the dating apps Grindr and Gaydar.

Two of the targets made criminal complaints to Scotland Yard without knowing the real identity of their tormentor with detectives aware of the activities of Branning – whose name is a portmanteau of EastEnders characters Martin Fowler and Max Branning – since 2019.

Our journalists handed a 28-page dossier of evidence to the Metropolitan Police for investigation on 20 June 2023, however last week criminal claims started to emerge on social media, with the posts rapidly attracting more than 18 million views, causing Wootton to trend on Twitter for several days.

As a result, this newspaper is today publishing some details of our findings. We have identified five co-conspirators, along with a representative group of around a dozen victims. However sources suggest the true figure extends to many, many more men.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[karaddin]

2 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I stopped reading after this paragraph.

"The degree of vituperation with which Starmer is greeted on the left tends to depend on the degree of personal attachment to Corbyn, and can lead to strange conclusions – that Starmer’s past deceits will eventually cause him to unravel, or that Corbyn should have led the righteous out of the party immediately after his defeat. It seems likely that most people will continue to greet Starmer’s changes of course with a shrug, dismissing them as the result of party wrangling, and the notion of his special dishonesty as an idée fixe held by embittered losers. ‘Politician lies’ is, in any case, the definitive dog-bites-man story."

Oh, do fuck off.

Yeah I'm hardly as committed to hating Starmer as Spocky, and only really know what I see here, but this quoted section seems exceeding low in good faith.

[Gaston de Foix]

12 hours ago, Spockydog said:

Yeah, I stopped reading after this paragraph.

"The degree of vituperation with which Starmer is greeted on the left tends to depend on the degree of personal attachment to Corbyn, and can lead to strange conclusions – that Starmer’s past deceits will eventually cause him to unravel, or that Corbyn should have led the righteous out of the party immediately after his defeat. It seems likely that most people will continue to greet Starmer’s changes of course with a shrug, dismissing them as the result of party wrangling, and the notion of his special dishonesty as an idée fixe held by embittered losers. ‘Politician lies’ is, in any case, the definitive dog-bites-man story."

Oh, do fuck off.

That's unfortunate because while the piece is dismissive of the proposition that Starmer is to be discounted because he broke his promises, it does ask the more important question: what's a labour govt. for if its ruthlessness in pursuing power leads it to abandon labour's most fundamental commitments (and what are they anyway in Starmer's mind)? A question people are asking more and more about Starmer. 

Your view that broken promises is a betrayal of those fundamental commitments is not universally shared; the unease with the Starmer project is much broader (but shallower) than that.  

[Spockydog]

53 minutes ago, Gaston de Foix said:

Your view that broken promises is a betrayal of those fundamental commitments is not universally shared; the unease with the Starmer project is much broader (but shallower) than that.  

There's no way I would have voted for him if I knew then what I know now. And look, the simple fact is that if Sir Keir Starmer had run for the leadership under his current position on all these issues, he'd have gotten fewer votes than Clive fucking Lewis.

People keep saying things like, 'What does it matter if he lied? As long as he beats the Tories. As long as we win.'

I mean, what planet are these people on? Who is the 'we' here? Have they not seen what Starmer is proposing? Another five fucking years of neo-liberal austerity. Yeah, so much winning.

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[Which Tyler]

That's easy.

The choice that's going to be offered isn't going to be "Labour under Kier Starmer, or Labour under ANOther?" It's going to be "Labour under Kier Starmer, or Conservatives under Rishi Sunak (currently)?" for which there's only one viable answer, howver pissed off any individual may be about Starmer, he's orders of magnitude better than the alternative we'll actually be offered.

[Spockydog]

And that, Mr Tyler, is precisely why I am in a state of despair.

 

Edited July 18, 2023 by Spockydog

[Heartofice]

Starmer is mainly concerned with getting elected, and if you don't want another Tory government then you should be too. 

He seems to just be trying to head off any potential attack lanes from the Tories as well, setting himself up as being fiscally responsible and not open to spending money he doesn't have. It's pretty easy to understand that he has to go back on policies that now seem totally unaffordable. 

Even then, things like the two child benefits policy is actually one that is generally pretty popular with voters, which might seem to make zero sense if you are a middle class urban Labour voter. But if you are working class and have made sensible life choices and haven't had more kids than you can afford and work to provide for them, you probably aren't too keen at seeing that family down the road with 8 kids running amok with layabout parents being handed free cash for sitting on their arse. I've lived near plenty of families like that growing up, it was almost the norm on a local estate near me, and imagine a lot of other voters see it too.

It just comes down to an issue of fairness, and yes it might seem unfair for those people out of work with more than 2 children, but if you want support for a welfare system you need to get the people paying into it on board, and make it clear their money is going to those who need it and isn't being taken advantage of.