The Labour Government

west didsblue said:
Truss didn’t do a masters though.
Quite surprising she got into Oxford though. Standards must have dropped in the 90s.
Click to expand...
Your background was more important than your actual performance back then. Her dad was a maths professor of some renown and has his own wikipedia article, so she's clearly from a very comfortable background despite being billed as a 'comprehensive school' kid. And by comprehensive school, we obviously mean one of those comprehensive schools that has an extensive Wikipedia entry and no less than 34 people with their own Wikipedia article counted among its alumni. My school has 3 paragraphs on wikipedia. Hers has nine sections. So yeah, posh background, fairly posh school, did well, got into Oxford. Pretty standard in the 90s.
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
I get your point but the 'doing ok' level depends on very much where you live etc. I think end of life care (care homes etc) is almost as great a leveller as death itself - millionaire home owners in the same situation as penniless council tenants in most cases. In many ways this is (brutally) fair apart from the leeches that operate private care either rob the tax payer or rob the kids inheritance.
Click to expand...
Another public service that has become unaffordable because the government ceded it to private companies. See also energy, water, trains, child care, etc.
 
west didsblue said:
Always makes me laugh the “Rachel from accounts” slur when she has a bachelors degree in PPE (E for Economics) and a masters degree in Economics. She’s educationally the most qualified chancellor we’ve had in years and she actually has worked for the BoE and HBOS picking up valuable experience. She’s someone who actually has an in depth understanding of her brief which is rare for a politician.
Click to expand...

This can’t be a serious post? Technocrats make poor politicians.
 
metalblue said:
This can’t be a serious post? Technocrats make poor politicians.
Click to expand...
Agree they’re not always good at putting across their vision which is important. But it’s more important that they know what they’re doing.
I know a Treasury civil servant who can vouch for the fact that she is very capable.
 
BlueHammer85 said:
These things take time sometimes, not everything’s a conspiracy.
Click to expand...
Not everything’s a conspiracy but plenty of things are structural. We get a surface level analysis of the news these days because they have an obsession with click through rate and breaking news. Is it any wonder than the Post Office scandal wasn’t uncovered by any mainstream newspaper?
 
Brewster's millions said:
Thanks Einstein.

The same cursory report. Little to no discussion of how they came into the information of Starmer’s address, the motivation for the attacks or indeed the potential involvement of hostile states.
Click to expand...
What a weird post. I’m guessing you’re embarrassed that your previous post was proven to be nonsense and you’re moving the goalposts and hoping that no one notices.
 
I'm With Stupid said:
Not everything’s a conspiracy but plenty of things are structural. We get a surface level analysis of the news these days because they have an obsession with click through rate and breaking news. Is it any wonder than the Post Office scandal wasn’t uncovered by any mainstream newspaper?
Click to expand...
Pretty sure that if this was a spurned lovers revenge by starmers Ukrainian rent boy one of the tabloids would've run with it?
 
west didsblue said:
Keep digging. It’s amusing.
Click to expand...
No even vaguely as amusing as your post yesterday on Rachel Reeves’ exemplary career as an economist.

She co-authored one working paper in her 5 or 6 years she was at the BoE (the other author did the difficult econometrics bit by the way), she got booted out eventually and given a non-job in Washington because she was useless, then she ended up in customer complaints in Halifax and lied on her CV about still being an economist. And then guess what, she was booted out of that job as well.

Desperate, desperate stuff.
 
Brewster's millions said:
No even vaguely as amusing as your post yesterday on Rachel Reeves’ exemplary career as an economist.

She co-authored one working paper in her 5 or 6 years she was at the BoE (the other author did the difficult econometrics bit by the way), she got booted out eventually and given a non-job in Washington because she was useless, then she ended up in customer complaints in Halifax and lied on her CV about still being an economist. And then guess what, she was booted out of that job as well.

Desperate, desperate stuff.
Click to expand...
Another re-write of history.
I simply pointed out she had educational and work experience in the field for which she is responsible for which is unusual for most politicians.

Not really sure what you expected of her in her first job in her 20’s. I would have thought that being sent to work abroad in Washington would not be a role given to someone useless. Also taking voluntary redundancy is hardly being booted out but I’m sure you know that.

Like I say, keep digging.
 
Gone down a rabbit hole over the last page. I might start a thread about looking at my own arsehole in the mirror if there is sufficient interest?
 
Mazzarelli's Swiss Cheese said:
Gone down a rabbit hole over the last page. I might start a thread about looking at my own arsehole in the mirror if there is sufficient interest?
Click to expand...
I'm sure you did that 10 years during a dull summer recess and the mods weren't as pissy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top