2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Wow that's bad. Also alarming is that despite the smaller number of women in tech 70% of the recent tech layoffs were women! That must leave the under representation even more severerick_chasey said:
Came up today.shirley_basso said:And how often does the later happen?
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05/1203845886/women-tech-conference-men-grace-hopper0 -
My company has an IT development centre in Bangkok, and it is completely the other way round, probably 80% women. Shows that it is purely just a cultural thing, however ingrained it may seem.joeyhalloran said:
Wow that's bad. Also alarming is that despite the smaller number of women in tech 70% of the recent tech layoffs were women! That must leave the under representation even more severerick_chasey said:
Came up today.shirley_basso said:And how often does the later happen?
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05/1203845886/women-tech-conference-men-grace-hopper0 -
Yeah.joeyhalloran said:
Wow that's bad. Also alarming is that despite the smaller number of women in tech 70% of the recent tech layoffs were women! That must leave the under representation even more severerick_chasey said:
Came up today.shirley_basso said:And how often does the later happen?
https://www.npr.org/2023/10/05/1203845886/women-tech-conference-men-grace-hopper
I appreciate there is a lot of scaremongering about this, and a lot of it is nonsense - I’m sure the vast vast majority of trans people are absolutely fine - but to legislate for them is to open the door to abuse by men who have no intention to be women.
This is a great example. There are reasons why women need spaces away from men, as much as there are reasons that trans people need more protection.
Problem is so far is it’s zero sun and that rights for one hurt rights of the other.
(I also struggle a bit with the emperors new clothes element to it, but I guess I just put that aside because if they are sincere it’s worse for them, presumably)0 -
Rachel Reeves seems to get very positive reviews from business (though I think it's just a case of anyone who isn't a total populist moron), and i'm pleased the (shadow) chancellor has an economics degree so at least there is a genuine level of understanding.
I do worry she is not a free marketeer enough. She's very much into heavy state intervention in the free markets, which would be fine if we haven't had a tonne of that already without any success.0 -
This might support Starmer's caution in matters European and otherwise:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/oct/09/working-class-deserting-tories-in-droves-under-rishi-sunak-poll-findsWorking-class people who were a key part of the coalition of voters that delivered the Conservatives’ 2019 general election win have been deserting the party in droves under Rishi Sunak’s leadership, polling has found.
Only 44% of working-class voters who voted for the Tories in 2019 say they will back the party next time, according to research by YouGov released as Keir Starmer prepares to make what will probably be his last pitch for support at a Labour conference before a general election.
A report released by the centre-left thinktank Progressive Policy Institute, which commissioned the findings, said Labour’s lead was much narrower with working-class voters than the wider electorate and urged Starmer’s party to redouble its efforts to woo them.
But on grounds where the Tories were seeming to exploit, working-class voters were more negative than positive on the effects of immigration.
However, as net zero becomes increasingly central as a battleground, other findings around attitudes towards the climate crisis showed there was an awareness of it across all social groups, with more working-class voters saying the government is not doing or spending enough to try to reduce carbon emissions (34%).
At the same time, there were stark signs that Sunak’s recent pivot away from green polices and tactics such as campaigning around London’s Ulez driving charge could find more widespread traction. A total of 53% of working-class voters agree that it is important to combat the climate emergency but “people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”.
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.0 -
What is also implied is people care about global warming, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.briantrumpet said:
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.
“people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
pblakeney said:
What is also implied is people care about global warming, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.briantrumpet said:
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.
“people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”
Well yes. That sort of thing is a given - most people support more government spending on all sorts of vital stuff, but then any nuance or principles go out of the window at elections and they vote for the party who claims they'll cut tax for them personally.0 -
Yes I've noticed that argument a lot on the Tory side.pblakeney said:
What is also implied is people care about global warming, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.briantrumpet said:
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.
“people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”
"working class people shouldn't have to pay more so that middle class people can drive electric cars conscious free".
Would be lovely if we moved away from the "being sustainable is inflationary so we can't do it" narrative to "look at what we're doing to make sustainability beneficial for everyone"?0 -
rick_chasey said:
Yes I've noticed that argument a lot on the Tory side.pblakeney said:
What is also implied is people care about global warming, as long as it doesn't inconvenience them.briantrumpet said:
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.
“people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”
"working class people shouldn't have to pay more so that middle class people can drive electric cars conscious free".
Would be lovely if we moved away from the "being sustainable is inflationary so we can't do it" narrative to "look at what we're doing to make sustainability beneficial for everyone"?
Indeed, hence the Tories' sudden concern for poor people "having to pay for ULEZ". It's merely tapping into that electoral gambit, rather than any concern for poor people.0 -
It seems obvious, but the clue is in the name for "sustainability".
It also needs to be politically sustainable, else we're not gonna get there. If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.0 -
Sustainability will cost both in terms of cost and politics. There is no pleasant way to achieve it, other than wishful thinking. We should bother, but not delude ourselves.rick_chasey said:It seems obvious, but the clue is in the name for "sustainability".
It also needs to be politically sustainable, else we're not gonna get there. If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
If it's done right over the long term it won't cost more. A lot less, in fact.pblakeney said:
Sustainability will cost both in terms of cost and politics. There is no pleasant way to achieve it, other than wishful thinking. We should bother, but not delude ourselves.rick_chasey said:It seems obvious, but the clue is in the name for "sustainability".
It also needs to be politically sustainable, else we're not gonna get there. If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.
And the longer you wait, the more it costs. Area under the graph innit.0 -
rick_chasey said:
If it's done right over the long term it won't cost more. A lot less, in fact.pblakeney said:
Sustainability will cost both in terms of cost and politics. There is no pleasant way to achieve it, other than wishful thinking. We should bother, but not delude ourselves.rick_chasey said:It seems obvious, but the clue is in the name for "sustainability".
It also needs to be politically sustainable, else we're not gonna get there. If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.
And the longer you wait, the more it costs. Area under the graph innit.
There's your problem: that's what politics will always be bad at... the next election is as far as they can see.0 -
🤣🤣🤣rick_chasey said:
If it's done right....pblakeney said:
Sustainability will cost both in terms of cost and politics. There is no pleasant way to achieve it, other than wishful thinking. We should bother, but not delude ourselves.rick_chasey said:It seems obvious, but the clue is in the name for "sustainability".
It also needs to be politically sustainable, else we're not gonna get there. If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.
Wot Brian said. We can't even build a railway line.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
rick_chasey said:
If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.
0 -
surely the major takeaway from that is that "they" think the Govt is not spending enough on combating climate change but "they" don't want to pay for it.briantrumpet said:This might support Starmer's caution in matters European and otherwise:
https://www.theguardian.com/inequality/2023/oct/09/working-class-deserting-tories-in-droves-under-rishi-sunak-poll-findsWorking-class people who were a key part of the coalition of voters that delivered the Conservatives’ 2019 general election win have been deserting the party in droves under Rishi Sunak’s leadership, polling has found.
Only 44% of working-class voters who voted for the Tories in 2019 say they will back the party next time, according to research by YouGov released as Keir Starmer prepares to make what will probably be his last pitch for support at a Labour conference before a general election.
A report released by the centre-left thinktank Progressive Policy Institute, which commissioned the findings, said Labour’s lead was much narrower with working-class voters than the wider electorate and urged Starmer’s party to redouble its efforts to woo them.
But on grounds where the Tories were seeming to exploit, working-class voters were more negative than positive on the effects of immigration.
However, as net zero becomes increasingly central as a battleground, other findings around attitudes towards the climate crisis showed there was an awareness of it across all social groups, with more working-class voters saying the government is not doing or spending enough to try to reduce carbon emissions (34%).
At the same time, there were stark signs that Sunak’s recent pivot away from green polices and tactics such as campaigning around London’s Ulez driving charge could find more widespread traction. A total of 53% of working-class voters agree that it is important to combat the climate emergency but “people like me should not be paying the cost of policies to reduce global carbon emissions”.
In short, I think Labour need to keep their discipline over messaging on several fronts, as there's still a significant number of 'working class' people who think that the Tories give a hoot about their plight and aren't utterly incompetent. However bemusing that is, that's what's implied here.
I am so confused I can't remember if anybody explained why we could not do QE indefinitely0 -
Try reading my posts in full.rick_chasey said:rick_chasey said:If only the XR lot see that > they're the other side of the coin to the climate nihilists who think the human race are so stupid they won't save themselves, so why bother.
It won't be easy, it won't be pleasant, it won't be popular politically, it should be done.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Unsurprisingly, not many people give a sh!t about private school fees0 -
But those that do will care a lot. The better question would be whether the policy will change votes to or from Labour.rick_chasey said:
Unsurprisingly, not many people give a sh!t about private school fees0 -
No, the better question is whether it is so far off most peoples radar as to make no difference whatsoever. The no difference whatsoever question would be legitimate to ask about the tax take as well.TheBigBean said:
But those that do will care a lot. The better question would be whether the policy will change votes to or from Labour.rick_chasey said:
Unsurprisingly, not many people give a sh!t about private school fees
Is this just a policy directed to a specific audience within the party?0 -
-
Why post it then. You've wasted a part of the Internet.rick_chasey said:Yes obviously
0 -
It's provoked a response from the Conservatives calling it the "parent tax", so that's good for Labour.First.Aspect said:
No, the better question is whether it is so far off most peoples radar as to make no difference whatsoever. The no difference whatsoever question would be legitimate to ask about the tax take as well.TheBigBean said:
But those that do will care a lot. The better question would be whether the policy will change votes to or from Labour.rick_chasey said:
Unsurprisingly, not many people give a sh!t about private school fees
Is this just a policy directed to a specific audience within the party?0 -
Seems kinda significant... first Mark Carney, and now Max 'Telegraph' Hastings.
0 -
It's not over till our resident back-a-winner flips.briantrumpet said:Seems kinda significant... first Mark Carney, and now Max 'Telegraph' Hastings.
Pigs flying over a frozen hell, but still...The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.3 -
I'm not quite sure I understand the SNP MP defecting to the Tories. That feels weird on a political level where I would have thought the Tories are about as far away on most issues and also means she's moving to a Party that appears doomed at the next election so it doesn't even seem like a wise move from a career perspective.0
-
Sounds like someone wants to retire from politics without actually quitting.Pross said:I'm not quite sure I understand the SNP MP defecting to the Tories. That feels weird on a political level where I would have thought the Tories are about as far away on most issues and also means she's moving to a Party that appears doomed at the next election so it doesn't even seem like a wise move from a career perspective.
I'd guess she'd almost have a chance with any of the other parties.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
The SNP are a broad political church with many of their number willing to hold their noses on general policy to rally around the independence cause. A couple of decades ago when one of their main levers was: what could we do with the oil money? they were referred to as the Tartan Tories.
Once you've rowed back from believing that independence is the way, as she has, any direction a leaver subsequently takes wouldn't surprise me.
Given that we've got PR in Scotland, I'm surprised there's not more independence parties. Maybe that's down to Westminster not having PR.================================
Cake is just weakness entering the body0 -
There are two independence parties, ones just not very popular.wakemalcolm said:The SNP are a broad political church with many of their number willing to hold their noses on general policy to rally around the independence cause. A couple of decades ago when one of their main levers was: what could we do with the oil money? they were referred to as the Tartan Tories.
Once you've rowed back from believing that independence is the way, as she has, any direction a leaver subsequently takes wouldn't surprise me.
Given that we've got PR in Scotland, I'm surprised there's not more independence parties. Maybe that's down to Westminster not having PR.
Anyone believing independence is a good thing will realise that it has to be a united cause. If there were multiple parties with different visions of what an independent Scotland would look like, the pro UK parties would find it much easier to point out they can't all be right. This in turn would fuel doubt.
Instead all of these desperate visions are united under a facade of unity, which is now crumbling.0 -
Actually, there might be 3. There's the nose pickers, Salmond's expulsion overflow party and do the Greens not come out for independence?First.Aspect said:
There are two independence parties, ones just not very popular.wakemalcolm said:The SNP are a broad political church with many of their number willing to hold their noses on general policy to rally around the independence cause. A couple of decades ago when one of their main levers was: what could we do with the oil money? they were referred to as the Tartan Tories.
Once you've rowed back from believing that independence is the way, as she has, any direction a leaver subsequently takes wouldn't surprise me.
Given that we've got PR in Scotland, I'm surprised there's not more independence parties. Maybe that's down to Westminster not having PR.
Anyone believing independence is a good thing will realise that it has to be a united cause. If there were multiple parties with different visions of what an independent Scotland would look like, the pro UK parties would find it much easier to point out they can't all be right. This in turn would fuel doubt.
Instead all of these desperate visions are united under a facade of unity, which is now crumbling.
I think the case for independence would be stronger if there were people supporting it from a number of different political stand points.================================
Cake is just weakness entering the body0
