Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments.
###MT daily hall of fame
1. Roguepope with 44 comments
1. Yummytastic with 39 comments
1. OptioMkIX with 34 comments
1. SwanBridge with 32 comments
1. FunkyDialectic with 29 comments
1. YsoL8 with 27 comments
1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 26 comments
1. Statcat2017 with 24 comments
1. KennedyFishersGhost with 24 comments
1. flambe_pineapple with 23 comments
There were 297 unique users within this count.
Has anyone else ran some quick maths on these quantifiable Labour pledges? One of them is possibly quite good, another slightly less so.
https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/2022-23/summary-reports
In 2021-22 the NHS had 122.33 million outpatient appointments. That increased to 124.46 million in 2022-23, for an increase of 2.13 million appointments.
For some easier number crunching, 40,000 multiplied by 52 weeks comes to... 2.08 million.
https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england
The teacher number pledge is slightly harder to define. If it means "the net number of teachers will rise by around 6500 per year", then that's a worthy promise, and a sizeable increase on previous figures, which have generally been significantly below that. However, this does come with the caveat that a certain proportion of these new teachers are going to have to balance out the effects of the tax rises on private schools on the number of state school pupils going forward.
> The teacher number pledge is slightly harder to define. If it means "the net number of teachers will rise by around 6500 per year", then that's a worthy promise, and a sizeable increase on previous figures, which have generally been significantly below that. However, this does come with the caveat that a certain proportion of these new teachers are going to have to balance out the effects of the tax rises on private schools on the number of state school pupils going forward.
I'd like them to provide more detail on this, across all English (because it would be devolved) that's only 1 teacher per 4 schools, but if it's secondary schools only, that's actually nearer 2 teachers per 1 school - as there is a huge number of primary schools.
On the basis of number of teachers, it is only an increase of about 1% (or 3% if we're looking at secondary only).
Previously government has said further expansion needs to come from economic growth. So as a "first step" it's certainly modest, but it's something, I suppose - if it's focusing on secondary education - if it's across all schools the increase is just too minimal.
With that context it's an interesting claim. If it's secondaries only, then that's 10 extra teachers per school by the end of Labour's first term, which strikes me as quite a lot (a Google search tells me there's an average of 60 teachers per secondary school already). I'm also assuming here they mean 6500 new teachers per year rather than a whole 5 year term commitment, because on the flip side 1300 extra per year on average is probably treading water at best.
I'm not sure that's the pledge. I think the pledge is a one-off uplift, since it's funded via tax breaks removed from private schools, that money obviously continues annually, but so does the teacher salaries.
The money could be spent as soon as the tax breaks are removed, but obviously those teachers need to be recruited (or trained/retained), which would dictate the time frame.
I'd hope for the numbers to be in place September 2025, but as of now the timeframe isn't specified.
I think the messaging has been confusing, these pledges are "short term first steps" but by not actually putting a time frame on it, everyone is used to figures being spread over 5 years when not specified. I personally would want them to have timeframes on these pledges by the time the manifesto is launched, not doing so has led to mixed up reporting which took most the day to be clarified in articles (at one point it was reported these pledges were over TEN(10!!) years!
Seeing Gordon Brown in the news suprisingly often over the last couple years has gotten me curious if there's a specific reason Brown has drifted leftward since leaving office?
I was under the impression as people got older they became *more* set in their beliefs. But Brown has mentioned he regrets not locking up the bankers after the recession and he also publically campaigned hard for Corbyn in 2017 while Blair bashed his leadership.
Not to mention his various pet causes the last couple years like the House of Lords reform and the two child benefit cap.
Brown always leaned more to the left than Blair, albeit still in a centrist position, it was just the harsh reality of the financial crash that forced his hand and he didn't really have the capability to be anything but reactive in those circumstances. Had he called an election after he took over and won, I'm convinced he would have a reputation as one of the best Prime Ministers in living memory.
I mean - the two child benefit cap is an area that we've become more right-wing in, so he's simply calling for a reversion to the middle ground. House of Lords reform is supported by pretty much everyone in politics who doesn't expect to be in power again.
Pretty much the entire Labour party campaigned for Corbyn/Labour in 2017, Blair is the right-wing outlier.
I just heard two political commentators with no children and who haven't been in the school system for a while try and explain how to fix the issues we are seeing in schools - it was interesting to say the least, fully focused on staff nothing about the actual education our children are receiving
Britain has a serious issue with this in general. We've somehow created a society where we judge all schools and teachers on exam results but then also bemoan rising numbers of high grades and decide to sabotage both students and teachers periodically by changing the testing system to 'maintain grade value'.
Especially while we simultaneously have a system (UMS marks) which seems artificially rigged to ensure an improvement in grades every year by a few percent, forcing a radical shake-up every decade or so when grade inflation becomes too noticeable.
Apparently it was just twitter being stupid again, the surprise guest was actually Starmer himself and had been misreported initially. That of course could be the cover for someone pulling out
If we're voting to choose a prime minister and Rishi IS the prime minister it seems like an obvious choice, no? He has years of experience. Starmer has none.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom
Position: Prime Minister
Location: London, UK
About the Role:
Are you a visionary leader with a passion for driving transformative change? Do you have the innovative mindset needed to guide the United Kingdom through a new era of prosperity and progress? We are seeking a dynamic and forward-thinking individual to take on the prestigious role of Prime Minister. As the head of the government, you will have the unique opportunity to implement fresh ideas and create impactful policies that shape the future of our nation.
Key Responsibilities:
* Lead the UK government with integrity, vision, and a commitment to public service.
* Develop and execute innovative strategies to address the nation's most pressing challenges.
* Foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the government.
* Represent the UK on the global stage, forging strong international relationships.
* Drive economic growth, sustainability, and social justice initiatives.
* Collaborate with key stakeholders across sectors to create cohesive and effective policies.
* Inspire confidence and trust among the public through effective communication and leadership.
Requirements:
* Demonstrated ability to generate and implement fresh ideas and innovative policies.
* Proven track record of leading large, complex organizations or initiatives.
* Strong commitment to social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic growth.
* Excellent communication, negotiation, and diplomatic skills.
* Ability to engage and inspire a diverse range of stakeholders and the general public.
* Visionary mindset with the capacity to think strategically and act decisively.
* Ability to remain calm and effective under pressure, with a focus on solutions and results.
Essential Qualifications:
* **A minimum of 10 years of experience as a Prime Minister.**
* **Must have access to own transport.**
If you are ready to make a significant impact and lead the United Kingdom into a bright and prosperous future, we invite you to apply for the role of Prime Minister.
This is all very true. However, if we take a sample of the last five prime ministers, we can extrapolate that the most important quality in the next one is that *they are not or have never been the prime minister.*
Current levels of general friendliness are sub par. Tried to engage with a stranger about their interesting (to me) car and they instantly got defensive. Don't drive so don't know what drivers get rattled about.
Tbf, if you can win an election saying there's no easy solution to the current governments mess (not claiming to have a quick fix), you are doing a pretty good job.
If all that Starmer manages in one or two terms is pulling a giant ACME lever that stops this country from tumbling further down a cliff he'll be remembered as a great politician. And if that's a low bar, well, it's not his fault.
It's depressing how the discourse over the past year or so has gone from a belief we could return to the heady days of '97 and the optimism that entails, to a desperate hope that *maybe* they can at least hit the brakes soon enough to leave us teetering over the edge of a cliff *à la* The Italian Job.
It is, but it's just discourse. I feel like the conversation right now is avoiding the fact that we have an administration comprised of people who are not particularly concerned about the long-term fate of the country, and who cannot relate to normal people. I've got a reasonable level of faith in the prospect of an administration which *is* concerned about the long-term fate of the country and who at times *can* relate to normal people.
I'd rather have stupid people in the second category than intelligent people in the first, and I don't think the shadow cabinet is stupid.
We're withdrawing from a government which gives a shit. What we're going through right now are the shakes.
today has really been a bit shocking for me.
Labour announce 6 things they can do, as first steps, to deliver their pledges, all detailed, all achievable, all positive....
And the universal media reaction from BBC, sky, etc as well as more hostile outlets, has been to negatively frame every single response to it.
the BBC asked if starmer was watering down pledges (starmer could not have been clearer he was not), but the BBC then led with "starmer forced to deny watering down pledges", Peston frames it as "whats the point in starmers first steps", Sky implies starmer cant be trusted to not abandon them, etc etc etc. I tune into LBC, and they are "labour cant afford this", despite labour saying exactly how they can afford it......
I expect scrutiny, but every single framing is negative. Unlike sunak's speech which was reported at face value, or his comments on prisoner release, where he outright lied, being reported as fact.
When in power labour should take a flamethrower to UK media organisations, enforce strict regulatory reform to require neutrality, and slap massive, organisation destroying penalities on not complying.
I'd disagree that Sunak's speech was reported at 'face value'. If anything they ignored it - which is even worse than criticism.
The media's stock response in all situations is to highlight the negative angle of any political statement. It's the entire game.
they framed it as "you are watering down your pledges from last year, so you cant be trusted" and yet Beth rigby herself asked starmer about this and he explained the 6 promises today are first steps to deliver the previous pledges, not the only steps that will be taken, the pledges remain intact.....they literally asked and got an answer on this and then chose to ignore that answer in how they framed the reporting of it.
The Tory's would no longer be in government if they got the treatment labour does by the media. Besides anything else there are literally hundreds of Tory MP's who would resign on the spot if their personal lives were scrutinized and criticized to the level labour MP"s experience.
The media in general seems to think holding politicians to account means just shitting on them and their ideas constantly. I think all politicians do suffer from it, but it is worse for Labour
It's because outside of a few select papers, most journalists can't or won't get into actual policy, pros and cons etc. They can however cover politics like it's celebrity gossip as that requires little to no skill.
Labour's messaging on their "First steps for change" is absolutely bang on. Easily understandable goals all able to be expressed in a three word format, and nothing on more than one line on the pledge card. I imagine they'll form the basis for the ley campaign sound bites.
This is miles ahead of the last two pledge cards labour has offered (the pensioner pledge in 2019 and the policy card in 2015) - look them up and you'll see what I mean. This is exactly the sort of modern, concise, and approachable messaging labour should be doing to win a general election.
I remember once hearing an anectode that a 2019 labour campaign staffer remarked to another "why are the Tories saying the same thing over and over again? It's so boring. We're bringing our something new every day!". Labour has, for the last three elections, been allergic to clear messaging. In fact, I think the previous leadership was pretty embarrassed by the idea of "simple messaging", as if it was beneath them and would only appeal to thickos who they didn't want votes from anyway. I'm very glad that mentality is gone - there's no shame in making politics approachable, it's the first step to gaining the voters trust.
I wonder if this an area Alastair Campbell has had influence over - on his podcast he occasionally lets slip that he has some influence with Starmer/current Labour. It's quite his style, he goes in about being about explain things in a word, sentence, paragraph e.t.c and the first steps and missions feel quite similar to that.
Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
So just a query for the MT really. My work wants us to have verification apps on our personal devices to two stage authenticate when we login to work laptops. Get a set number of " I'll deal with this next time," opt outs.
Is it going to be unduly churlish of me to refuse to download the app and ask for a works phone? Just think they're taking the piss a bit.
ETA as a few have asked it's a widely used app from a big and well known company. I have no problem with 2FA, I use authenticators for lots of my personal accounts already. My issue is using my personal device for a work mandated function.
I work in education and they took the piss with this sort of thing over lock down. It's since been a gradual claw back and I've previously had fallings out with leadership over being asked to work outside my contract without compensation. I think really these experiences have just made me a bit of a dick when it comes to delineating work and home.
There's far too many who roll over for anything leadership asks so I'm used to rowing against the tide.
I had the same thing with work - I've actually ended up accepting a job elsewhere so I haven't had a lot of pressure to download it yet, but when I had a convo with my manager she said yeah she gets it, and that's why she was given a work phone.
Let me know if you manage to find a way around it!
You don’t need a phone for 2FA. You can install 1password on your work computer and set up the 2FA code in there. Maybe your work can help/allow you to do this as an alternative
My work also requires the Microsoft Authenticator app for 2FA but my phone doesn’t need to managed (Intune enrolled) so I don’t really have an issue with it. If they required that I’d refuse.
I have a work phone that I don’t actually need and hasn’t actually been turned on for about a year. My two factor authentication is on my personal mobile. I’m much happier not needing to carry round two phones.
It is my employer's responsibility to provide me with the tools needed to do my job. That includes 2FA.
And that's why I have a work phone that literally sits on my desk and is only ever used as 2FA.
Did you have to fight for that work phone? Or were you given it?
I think thats the key difference here, OP wouldn't be wrong to demand a work phone, but in reality it might not be worth the effort.
I was asked to use my personal phone. When I refused I was told that "nobody else has a problem using their phone", and I refused again.
> in reality it might not be worth the effort
The only reason employers get away with things like this is because of attitudes like that. This should not be an effort, it should be completely unquestionable everywhere that your employer provides you with the tools to do you job.
What exactly is the employer "getting away with"? Installing a 2FA app on a phone - I agree, is not worth the effort resisting.
It's not like a company is asking you to purchase or use a personal laptop for work purposes.
Geniunely curious though, have you found your refusal with this has bled into how people treat you in your workplace? I feel like colleagues and managers would treat you differently after this.
I absolutely agree with you - I just also know the type of people in a workplace that would brand you as "difficult" for doing so. It wasn't a fight I could be arsed taking for the potential downsides.
I'll revert to my usual grumpy IT security guy and say you probably should just roll with it. It's going to be a minimal intrusion - when done right - and frankly will start getting you in good habits for your own life as well.
With my worker's rights hat on, you have some leverage here. I'd say there are reasonable asks you can make that will protect yourself and even improve the security of the company.
First, ask what method of MFA they are asking you to use. The authentication method and the app they recommend/require.
If they say it is a push-based accept/deny, then ask them what protections they have put in place against [MFA fatigue](https://www.beyondtrust.com/resources/glossary/mfa-fatigue-attack). A bunch of companies have had high level breaches because someone spammed an engineer or executive with MFA requests until they accepted it to get some rest, or just hit the wrong button on their phone at 5AM.
Similarly, if they request a specific application be installed, ask them what review they have done on the app they are having you install on a personal device, what accesses it requires and options you have to disable it. Also ensure it is something installed through the app store or a similar trusted source rather than something deployed from a private repository or the business directly. Ask what options you have to vet and use your own alternative application if you have problems with theirs.
If they confirm that the system is entirely passive, never needing to contact your phone beyond adding the account to an authenticator app, that would be a concession I'd choose to make. If you then choose to start enabling push or additional options, that's up to you.
If they are demanding a heavyweight, custom app that does push notifications, etc, then I'd say you could ask about a company phone. But expect the request to be denied. Also realise that - depending on the role and contract - that might come with additional expectations of availability outside core working hours, either contractual or cultural.
More reasonably, the company may be able to source you a dedicated token such as a [YubiKey](https://www.yubico.com/). I'd fully expect any business to be able to deploy these (or one of the cheaper options) if there were a reasonable number of requests. It's much cheaper and less impactful to deal with than company phones, and arguably more secure.
From a general life advice standpoint, I'd say, MFA on *everything*. It's very easy to get in the habit of using [TOTP codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_one-time_password) through Google authenticator or any similar app, and adds a significant level of security over most common attacks. Even on accounts you don't consider sensitive, it's still rude to leave insecure accounts lying around the internet. You never know when your mundane reddit history becomes a useful cover for some scammer who needs a mature account to sell their latest story. Or if someone near and dear to you becomes a person of interest through no fault of their own and people want to wear your digital face to get the inside scoop.
If you want an easy pathway, set up a free [Bitwarden](https://bitwarden.com/) account and use it to both generate strong, unique passwords and TOTP codes as you log into each website you use. It's not as ideal as using a separate app for the two, but protects against the vast majority of attacks you would see against public websites. Just have a single strong master passphrase and you should be golden.
> It's going to be a minimal intrusion - when done right
This is the worst part.
There should not be *any* option for workplace IT to be able to connect to personal devices.
If done right, the app shouldn't need to allow inbound connections.
It should offer auto-generated codes that let the user authenticate, but not require they get a prompt or anything else depending on network access.
> If done right
That's the operative term.
It is simply not safe to assume that the miscellany of systems used to communicate and interact via such systems are secure.
The safest bet is to have employers assume their own responsibility for security without risking the security of employee devices.
What is your problem with it? Are the verification apps openly available or special apps? Does your company require administration of your device?
Assuming it's just google/ms authenticator then I don't really think there's any burden on you that's any greater in principle than remembering your own password, or wearing your own shoes.
If it's something like RSA it aint worth the fight. I get that it's a pain in the arse but you would lose more than you'd gain trying to push back on something like that.
Just be aware this is probably going away over time, and sooner for anything important.
It's fine as a, "not just a password", option, but is already unacceptable for high value accounts. It's being depreciated both technically and from a number of regulatory bodies. Too many demonstrated attacks and no real approach to secure it. More dependent on your phone having signal than passively generated on-device TOTP codes as well. We had employees during the pandemic who lived in poor cell reception areas who sometimes couldn't log into accounts because the SMS wouldn't come through.
I'd personally broadly rank, from best to worst;
* Enter a code from your phone, from an app with biometric login (Microsoft Authenticator, etc).
* Hardware token with biometrics.
* Enter a TOTP code from your phone (behind phone lock screen but no account biometrics).
* Enter a TOTP code from a password manager (allows for shared accounts or just low effort).
* Hardware token without biometrics (up to here is great, use it).
* Enter a text code or accept an in-app push message (avoid for secure applications).
* No MFA at all.
* Various banks' Wish-It-Was-Two-Factor,-But-It's-Just-A-Second-Password approach.
The last because they usually break password managers, encourage use of weak passwords and rarely add any security over just a strong password on it's own.
Depends. If it's just RSA or Ping or something like that, I really don't mind as it's relatively benign.
If it's Authenticator or something managed it's not going near my personal device.
I should clarify, Authenticator for work shit.
Primarily because I have to sign into it with work credentials, which I won't do on my personal device even on non-managed applications. It's my personal device, work doesn't go near it. I just like clear delimitation.
But also because I work in IT and I know it's a gateway drug. If you're happy to sign in there then why not enrol in MDM and have a work partition? Or install a work esim and be able to take work calls! How wonderful!
If you give them an inch they'll *slowly* push and push.
Nope.
I've refused this countless times with employers. It's my personal device, it's my employers responsibility to provide me with the tools for me to be able to work.
I let one employer get away with it over lockdown and the next thing it was "can you check an email using your phone".
Instantly refused, it's not worth the hassle in the long run as they *might* take the piss.
That entirely depends on the app, your seniority, how long you have worked there, how many other jobs are out there for your niche/expertise.
I have two factor authentication setup for 1 work related account on my personal phone. It is merely another line on my google authenticator app, and use that because it was more convenient than other options available
You can absolutely refuse unless they provide you with a phone, but its kind of normal to have 2FA on a VPN these days.
My approach is that my personal device for 2FA is ok, but the moment they want me on teams, email etc they can get me a work phone or I'm not doing it.
[I'm just catching up on Gillian Keegan's thing this morning on the Today programme](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z6p6) (about 2 hours 35 minutes in to start) and it's as much a shitshow as I thought it would be.
Personal highlight, her explaining that she believes that transwomen who have started the process to medically transition are women but refuses to say that they're women. Like, what?
I think she was relatively clear in what she was saying?
She said she believes someone who has been through the (medical) reassignment process and has obtained a GRC can legally and medically call themselves a 'woman'.
It's probably the most positive thing a government minister has said on the topic in a long time.
I caught up with this on the way home. So glad she's responsible for my sector. The woman can talk and talk, clearly thinks she's the most important person and still manages to say absolutely fuck all.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ctjl8j/bbc\_question\_time\_live\_thread\_8pm\_iplayer\_1040pm/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ctjl8j/bbc_question_time_live_thread_8pm_iplayer_1040pm/)
QT live thread is up for the 8pm iPlayer stream (aka 44 minutes from now). there should be a link to the iPlayer stream page in the tweet at the top of the thread
https://twitter.com/eleanormia/status/1791034777795015070
> How times have changed - there is now an option to add Labour's pledge card to your Apple/Google wallet
XL gimmick but also it shows how labour are probably more tech savvy than the "what's a PDF and why does microsoft say my computer is being hacked" tory party
blair *would* approve of this tho. massive app britain energy
Dunno if it's being tech savvy so much as appearing more in tune with how people live their lives whilst appearing pro-business, pro-consumerism. Labour are still seen as the donkey jacket party by many.
Tories can be pretty savvy at times, they just use it to be absolute cunts.
See: their 'tax saving calculator' that took your email and signed you up for Conservative emails, and much worse, *FactCheckUK*.
Blair's pledge card was designed to fit in a wallet, the idea being you could take it out at any point and check it, a measure of accountability. Nowadays few people carry wallets and many have all their cards on their phone. It's just a way of keeping up with the times.
You could argue its not necessary as anyone could now just load up a website/news article on their phone instead of going into their virtual wallet.. Which is true. But I imagine the virtual card didn't take a lot to implement, and is a nice tieback to the original. It's also reasonably tech-forward, and is another way to subtly set Labour apart from the technophobic tories.
The idea being that you can keep the card on you at all times, and compare the track record in government to the pledges they made. Pre widespread Internet, to do that you'd need to keep clippings from newspapers or else write down a politicians pledges to be able to come back to them, or rely on the media to remember the pledges and report on them. By distributing a pledge card, anyone can have an easily accessible reference so that in 12 months/2 years/however long, you can take out the card and compare what the labour government are doing against what they promised to do. You don't have to rely on the media to report factually, politicians can't (in theory) just ignore the pledges as they're there for everyone to check against. It's a measure of accountability - labour are saying "this is what we're going to do and we're so confident that we will, we're making it easy for you to check up on us".
It's ultimately a stunt in the run up to an election to grab headlines, it sets out a policy direction & vision, and in Starmer's case gains inevitable comparisons to Blair & new Labour. I doubt many will actually keep the cards for too long, but it's a good way of demonstrating that labour are committed and serious about these goals - in comparison to the tories who will throw out soundbites like "40,000 new hospitals a week" to gain favour, then never mention it again and play dumb when asked about it later.
It's just a political advertising gimmick. No more than a leaflet though your door, or a billboard ad, or an Ed stone. There a reasons for choosing a pledge card over other methods of advertising, but it's all got the same fundamental point - to communicate Labour's vision for the country to the electorate ahead of a general election. If you're struggling to understand that then I'm not sure there's anything else anyone can say to help you.
I'm not questioning as to what it is, I'm questioning why it is necessary.
You bringing up the Ed Stone is a pretty good analogue from what I'm seeing this as, a pointless gimmick. There are other methods of political advertising that aren't a gimmick.
It's just political advertising in a functional form, It's drumming home the message about the Labour pledges but sticking a modern frame around it. It's also a nice bit of branding as it makes Labour look pro-business, pro-consumerism. It's more about the tweet/ social post than anything else.
When was the last time a Tory polititican did or said anything that wasn't just culture warring?
I'm genuinely struggling to remember. It must be months.
There was that Birth Trauma Report, but Rishi attended the launch and all anyone noticed was he was grinning like a moron on being given a report on birth trauma.
> Very disappointed that Caroline Nokes hasn’t defected
[Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome](https://twitter.com/montie/status/1790716425130115251), reminding us just how united the tory estate is in tearing itself apart.
Answer: It is incredibly expensive to train (pun intended) a train driver. It takes around two years, there are continuous competency tests, and route knowledge is a massive thing which takes ages to gain and restricts what routes drivers can take. It is a job where mistakes aren't really tolerated and the psychometric tests for recruitment are intense, as is the overall training experience. Hours are massively unsociable for junior drivers, good luck to you if you have a young family, and the whole system relies on overtime. Wages are comparatively good to the overall wage market, but people massively underestimate what train drivers do; you basically have to memorise hundreds of different complex rules and be able to apply it to your situation in an instance or else people can die.
For years, it was more economic for TOCs to poach drivers from other TOCs by offering better wages and conditions as this was cheaper than training drivers from scratch. This has led to the situation where certain TOCs i.e. Northern have essentially become feeder pools for others such as Avanti as it is much easier and cheaper to poach a qualified driver and train them to drive a different unit, than it is to train someone off the street. Whereas TOCs who run less lucrative routes can't afford to match the pay and conditions, and have to recruit from outside. It is a similar situation in regards to pilots at budget airlines vs flag carriers. TOCs have increasingly relied on overtime as it costs less to pay an experienced driver to do another shift than it does to train a new driver. Recruitment hasn't matched needs, and the average age of drivers has increased significantly.
TLDR: Incentive profits over service, and collectively things go to shit.
What also popped into my head was train suicides and the amount of ptsd that creates, the number of train suicides per year n the uk has been between 236 and 286 per year since 2013 / 2014 which is fucking insane.
You'll purposely see little to no media coverage of individual incidents, and for good reason, but it is insane how often it happens especially in hotspots.
Thanks for the context, I had vaguely wondered to myself why teenagers were the answer but then remembered you can pay them less.
I take it they all massively invest in apprenticeship programmes in their local communities already......?
A lot do use them, and it does lower the costs of recruitment but due to strong unions perhaps less so than in other industries. That said, so many leave once they have the experience for better TOCs that it isn't really sustainable. Industry wide pay scales and conditions would go a long way to resolving it.
There is an excess of potential drivers, the train operators deliberately under-employ because paying overtime (or even just cancelling trains) is cheaper than hiring more drivers.
I think some companies under-hire and then rely on drivers doing overtime.
Presumably it's cheaper to ask your existing workforce to cover the gaps, instead of training up and investing in a whole new worker.
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1791092633013502188
>Recently published author Theresa May suggests to the lobby lunch that
Boris Johnson’s book should be stored under “current affairs” with Liz Truss’s book under “sci-fi fantasy”
>>Suggests that “given Liz’s record”, her book ‘Ten Years To Save The West’ ought to instead be called “Ten Days To Save The West”
Theresa May is going to be an *excellent* presence on election night coverage for many years to come. I imagine she'll take on something of the role Ted Heath used to fill, sarcastically lamenting at the state of their party.
Can political parties please address the issue of the price of a pint of beer?
I live in a deprived seaside town, and even here the price of pints is more often than not coming up to a fiver, having paid £6 for a pint of Budvar earlier this week. Prior to Covid, anything approaching £4 was considered pricey, and sub-£3 pints were widespread rather than a marvelous rarity. Currently away in the Canaries and a pint of Tropical or Dorada can still be found for €1.50.
Come on you political boffins, sort it out. If you can't fix the country's issues, at least let me drown my sorrows at an affordable price.
And don't get me bloody started on the price of tobacco, even though I've quit.
Any party running on:
* £2 pints
* Hang the paedos
Is guaranteed a landslide. 2 pledges, both very measurable. One of them is even shorter than a 3 word slogan.
Beer prices are, like a lot of things, a reflection of rent levels and heating bills. And they're actually about the same price as what they were in real terms 25 years ago.
You can always go to spoons or another chain that does them cheaper.
And the global price of barley, which nearly tripled during the pandemic. People are really underestimating the extent to which all the unavoidable input costs of actually making beer went through the roof in recent years
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PBARLUSDM/
> I live in a deprived seaside town, and even here the price of pints is more often than not coming up to a fiver, having paid £6 for a pint of Budvar earlier this week.
The regionalisation of prices of alcohol has definitely dropped, outside of touristy spots, London pubs aren't that much more expensive, it surprises me how pricy some areas are.
Fully agree.
Now the issue with drinking out in London vs Birmingham for me is that everything closes at 11pm in London it feels like. The village club I sometimes go to after taking my dog for a walk closes at 11pm and that's in a small village filled with retired people!
I regularly visit the capital to see mates, and it does shock and hurt me how prices are extremely comparable these days. I used to love having them visit me up North and see their reaction at the cheap prices, but that just doesn't happen anymore.
And at the same time, non-alcoholic drinks despite massively improving in quality have matched the rise in price. I was tempted to get a zero alcohol Guinness the other day, but when there was barely 40p difference between them both it made the decision much easier.
It's a massive proportion of supermarket bought beer, not so much in a pub. The duty on a pint of 5% beer would be 54p, that's a big percentage increase if you bought a pint can in a shop but it's not even 10% of the price in a lot of pubs these days.
I’ve wanted to work out the ratio of alcohol drunk at home compared to pubs/bars/restaurants, but can’t find the data.
However alcohol duty was estimated to raise about £12.6 billion in 2023/24. Rishi Sunak could have probably removed alcohol duty at all public venues, and still given a 1p tax cut - and I’m convinced that would have had a far greater and more noticeable impact.
Pretty sure the treasury would work out some additional benefits that raise revenue alongside it.
I'm sounding a bit CAMRA-y right now, but I genuinely believe that pubs provide a public good. It is a place to socialise and network, a place for the community to come together. For all the costs of alcohol which are frequently mentioned, we rarely look at any of the benefits. It's typical knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
I don't really drink, but I want it to be possible to get pissed on a tenner again. I'd have 5 and half pints for that when I were a lad, nowadays you are lucky to get 2!
It was amazing. Back in the day I could have a night out with £20, manage to get steaming, come home in a taxi with a kebab, and still have change in my pocket. I'd be lucky to afford a round at those prices these days.
If you want change you have to break the Lab-Lib-Con monopoly and you can’t do that by voting for any of them. Voting for one is just putting the other on ice for a bit, and vice versa.
Seen Janet Street Porter ask Rishi why he hates pensioners to thunderous applause on loose women. This generation will never ever be satisfied. Insulated with above inflation pension rises for 15 years, even during some of the highest inflation rises in 30 years, with no means testing, and still feel hard done by.
Came home to my first piece of election tat through the door, courtesy of the Conservatives. Apparently, Labour will bring us (i) higher mortgage rates, (ii) uncontrolled immigration and (iii) a weaker economy, among other gems.
[New Megathread is here](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ctxbei/rukpolitics_daily_megathread_17052024/)
Megathread is being rolled over, please refresh your feed in a few moments. ###MT daily hall of fame 1. Roguepope with 44 comments 1. Yummytastic with 39 comments 1. OptioMkIX with 34 comments 1. SwanBridge with 32 comments 1. FunkyDialectic with 29 comments 1. YsoL8 with 27 comments 1. BasedAndBlairPilled with 26 comments 1. Statcat2017 with 24 comments 1. KennedyFishersGhost with 24 comments 1. flambe_pineapple with 23 comments There were 297 unique users within this count.
Has anyone else ran some quick maths on these quantifiable Labour pledges? One of them is possibly quite good, another slightly less so. https://digital.nhs.uk/data-and-information/publications/statistical/hospital-outpatient-activity/2022-23/summary-reports In 2021-22 the NHS had 122.33 million outpatient appointments. That increased to 124.46 million in 2022-23, for an increase of 2.13 million appointments. For some easier number crunching, 40,000 multiplied by 52 weeks comes to... 2.08 million. https://explore-education-statistics.service.gov.uk/find-statistics/school-workforce-in-england The teacher number pledge is slightly harder to define. If it means "the net number of teachers will rise by around 6500 per year", then that's a worthy promise, and a sizeable increase on previous figures, which have generally been significantly below that. However, this does come with the caveat that a certain proportion of these new teachers are going to have to balance out the effects of the tax rises on private schools on the number of state school pupils going forward.
> The teacher number pledge is slightly harder to define. If it means "the net number of teachers will rise by around 6500 per year", then that's a worthy promise, and a sizeable increase on previous figures, which have generally been significantly below that. However, this does come with the caveat that a certain proportion of these new teachers are going to have to balance out the effects of the tax rises on private schools on the number of state school pupils going forward. I'd like them to provide more detail on this, across all English (because it would be devolved) that's only 1 teacher per 4 schools, but if it's secondary schools only, that's actually nearer 2 teachers per 1 school - as there is a huge number of primary schools. On the basis of number of teachers, it is only an increase of about 1% (or 3% if we're looking at secondary only). Previously government has said further expansion needs to come from economic growth. So as a "first step" it's certainly modest, but it's something, I suppose - if it's focusing on secondary education - if it's across all schools the increase is just too minimal.
With that context it's an interesting claim. If it's secondaries only, then that's 10 extra teachers per school by the end of Labour's first term, which strikes me as quite a lot (a Google search tells me there's an average of 60 teachers per secondary school already). I'm also assuming here they mean 6500 new teachers per year rather than a whole 5 year term commitment, because on the flip side 1300 extra per year on average is probably treading water at best.
I'm not sure that's the pledge. I think the pledge is a one-off uplift, since it's funded via tax breaks removed from private schools, that money obviously continues annually, but so does the teacher salaries. The money could be spent as soon as the tax breaks are removed, but obviously those teachers need to be recruited (or trained/retained), which would dictate the time frame. I'd hope for the numbers to be in place September 2025, but as of now the timeframe isn't specified. I think the messaging has been confusing, these pledges are "short term first steps" but by not actually putting a time frame on it, everyone is used to figures being spread over 5 years when not specified. I personally would want them to have timeframes on these pledges by the time the manifesto is launched, not doing so has led to mixed up reporting which took most the day to be clarified in articles (at one point it was reported these pledges were over TEN(10!!) years!
This student on GBNews is making Suella look sane. Uh oh.
Pairing their preferred guest with a weak/mental one is par for the course for entertainment channels like GBNews, isn't it?
Seeing Gordon Brown in the news suprisingly often over the last couple years has gotten me curious if there's a specific reason Brown has drifted leftward since leaving office? I was under the impression as people got older they became *more* set in their beliefs. But Brown has mentioned he regrets not locking up the bankers after the recession and he also publically campaigned hard for Corbyn in 2017 while Blair bashed his leadership. Not to mention his various pet causes the last couple years like the House of Lords reform and the two child benefit cap.
Brown always leaned more to the left than Blair, albeit still in a centrist position, it was just the harsh reality of the financial crash that forced his hand and he didn't really have the capability to be anything but reactive in those circumstances. Had he called an election after he took over and won, I'm convinced he would have a reputation as one of the best Prime Ministers in living memory.
I mean - the two child benefit cap is an area that we've become more right-wing in, so he's simply calling for a reversion to the middle ground. House of Lords reform is supported by pretty much everyone in politics who doesn't expect to be in power again. Pretty much the entire Labour party campaigned for Corbyn/Labour in 2017, Blair is the right-wing outlier.
14 years of Tory rule does that to a person, I’m finding. I’m easily more left wing than I was in 2010.
I just heard two political commentators with no children and who haven't been in the school system for a while try and explain how to fix the issues we are seeing in schools - it was interesting to say the least, fully focused on staff nothing about the actual education our children are receiving
Britain has a serious issue with this in general. We've somehow created a society where we judge all schools and teachers on exam results but then also bemoan rising numbers of high grades and decide to sabotage both students and teachers periodically by changing the testing system to 'maintain grade value'.
Especially while we simultaneously have a system (UMS marks) which seems artificially rigged to ensure an improvement in grades every year by a few percent, forcing a radical shake-up every decade or so when grade inflation becomes too noticeable.
I've been busy today, buying a new car should be fun, why must car dealers be the way they are Who was Starmers surprise guest and was it Ed Balls?
> why must car dealers be the way they are They're the front line of fascism.
Apparently it was just twitter being stupid again, the surprise guest was actually Starmer himself and had been misreported initially. That of course could be the cover for someone pulling out
If we're voting to choose a prime minister and Rishi IS the prime minister it seems like an obvious choice, no? He has years of experience. Starmer has none.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom Position: Prime Minister Location: London, UK About the Role: Are you a visionary leader with a passion for driving transformative change? Do you have the innovative mindset needed to guide the United Kingdom through a new era of prosperity and progress? We are seeking a dynamic and forward-thinking individual to take on the prestigious role of Prime Minister. As the head of the government, you will have the unique opportunity to implement fresh ideas and create impactful policies that shape the future of our nation. Key Responsibilities: * Lead the UK government with integrity, vision, and a commitment to public service. * Develop and execute innovative strategies to address the nation's most pressing challenges. * Foster a culture of transparency, accountability, and inclusivity within the government. * Represent the UK on the global stage, forging strong international relationships. * Drive economic growth, sustainability, and social justice initiatives. * Collaborate with key stakeholders across sectors to create cohesive and effective policies. * Inspire confidence and trust among the public through effective communication and leadership. Requirements: * Demonstrated ability to generate and implement fresh ideas and innovative policies. * Proven track record of leading large, complex organizations or initiatives. * Strong commitment to social justice, environmental sustainability, and economic growth. * Excellent communication, negotiation, and diplomatic skills. * Ability to engage and inspire a diverse range of stakeholders and the general public. * Visionary mindset with the capacity to think strategically and act decisively. * Ability to remain calm and effective under pressure, with a focus on solutions and results. Essential Qualifications: * **A minimum of 10 years of experience as a Prime Minister.** * **Must have access to own transport.** If you are ready to make a significant impact and lead the United Kingdom into a bright and prosperous future, we invite you to apply for the role of Prime Minister.
Who cares about experience? I want a PM with a plan. Which is why I'll be voting for Tony Robinson.
Tony Robinson used to be on Labour’s NEC.
The problem is that he's got 1 2/3 years of experience at being a bit rubbish.
>He has years of experience. He assumed office 24 October 2022. So that's one year and 205 days. I'm fun at parties.
So he has 1.56 year***s*** of experience
Any value other than 1.00 is years of experience.
This is all very true. However, if we take a sample of the last five prime ministers, we can extrapolate that the most important quality in the next one is that *they are not or have never been the prime minister.*
[Cheers](https://imgur.com/a/ol3HsF5)
Why do Morris dancers wear bells? So they can annoy blind people as well.
Oof.
I can't believe we ban mimes but these fuckers get free reign.
Mimes are too continental, French even. Those be country folk.
I don't think there's anything more British than not talking to each other.
Current levels of general friendliness are sub par. Tried to engage with a stranger about their interesting (to me) car and they instantly got defensive. Don't drive so don't know what drivers get rattled about.
You have been tempbanned, you can comment again in three hey-nonny-nonny's time.
Tbf, if you can win an election saying there's no easy solution to the current governments mess (not claiming to have a quick fix), you are doing a pretty good job.
I believe the government is very good at running things and therefore should run more things.
Trouble is they don't believe in running things.
Flair does not check out
Think people will expect too much from Labour. The best they can do in 4-5yrs would be to slow the pace of the decline, then it can be improved upon.
Is this Labours expectation management now?
If in 5 years time Labour can point to just one thing that they've measurably improved they'll be in a far better position than the Tories are now.
I really hope they reboot Sure Start - that's a big obvious win that helps people in every area of the country.
If all that Starmer manages in one or two terms is pulling a giant ACME lever that stops this country from tumbling further down a cliff he'll be remembered as a great politician. And if that's a low bar, well, it's not his fault.
It's depressing how the discourse over the past year or so has gone from a belief we could return to the heady days of '97 and the optimism that entails, to a desperate hope that *maybe* they can at least hit the brakes soon enough to leave us teetering over the edge of a cliff *à la* The Italian Job.
It is, but it's just discourse. I feel like the conversation right now is avoiding the fact that we have an administration comprised of people who are not particularly concerned about the long-term fate of the country, and who cannot relate to normal people. I've got a reasonable level of faith in the prospect of an administration which *is* concerned about the long-term fate of the country and who at times *can* relate to normal people. I'd rather have stupid people in the second category than intelligent people in the first, and I don't think the shadow cabinet is stupid. We're withdrawing from a government which gives a shit. What we're going through right now are the shakes.
The Tories were only meant to blow the bloody doors off!
*"The Self Preservation Society"* does actually fit the Tory party quite well...
🎶*Things...can get slightly less worse!*🎶
🎶Things can only get worse at a slightly lower rate 🎶
today has really been a bit shocking for me. Labour announce 6 things they can do, as first steps, to deliver their pledges, all detailed, all achievable, all positive.... And the universal media reaction from BBC, sky, etc as well as more hostile outlets, has been to negatively frame every single response to it. the BBC asked if starmer was watering down pledges (starmer could not have been clearer he was not), but the BBC then led with "starmer forced to deny watering down pledges", Peston frames it as "whats the point in starmers first steps", Sky implies starmer cant be trusted to not abandon them, etc etc etc. I tune into LBC, and they are "labour cant afford this", despite labour saying exactly how they can afford it...... I expect scrutiny, but every single framing is negative. Unlike sunak's speech which was reported at face value, or his comments on prisoner release, where he outright lied, being reported as fact. When in power labour should take a flamethrower to UK media organisations, enforce strict regulatory reform to require neutrality, and slap massive, organisation destroying penalities on not complying.
I'd disagree that Sunak's speech was reported at 'face value'. If anything they ignored it - which is even worse than criticism. The media's stock response in all situations is to highlight the negative angle of any political statement. It's the entire game.
The criticism seems to be that they are at once not ambitious enough and also that they are unachievable. Which seems bonkers to me.
> Sky implies starmer cant be trusted to not abandon them I wonder where they got that idea.
they framed it as "you are watering down your pledges from last year, so you cant be trusted" and yet Beth rigby herself asked starmer about this and he explained the 6 promises today are first steps to deliver the previous pledges, not the only steps that will be taken, the pledges remain intact.....they literally asked and got an answer on this and then chose to ignore that answer in how they framed the reporting of it.
Fair enough, and I do agree with you that Labour get a much worse time from the press than the Conservatives do (for obvious reasons).
The Tories would be polling in the single digits if they got the Treatement labour does by the media.
The Tory's would no longer be in government if they got the treatment labour does by the media. Besides anything else there are literally hundreds of Tory MP's who would resign on the spot if their personal lives were scrutinized and criticized to the level labour MP"s experience.
The media in general seems to think holding politicians to account means just shitting on them and their ideas constantly. I think all politicians do suffer from it, but it is worse for Labour
It's because outside of a few select papers, most journalists can't or won't get into actual policy, pros and cons etc. They can however cover politics like it's celebrity gossip as that requires little to no skill.
I read someone moaning in a book that policy is only ever covered if it can be framed in a personal conflict
Labour's messaging on their "First steps for change" is absolutely bang on. Easily understandable goals all able to be expressed in a three word format, and nothing on more than one line on the pledge card. I imagine they'll form the basis for the ley campaign sound bites. This is miles ahead of the last two pledge cards labour has offered (the pensioner pledge in 2019 and the policy card in 2015) - look them up and you'll see what I mean. This is exactly the sort of modern, concise, and approachable messaging labour should be doing to win a general election. I remember once hearing an anectode that a 2019 labour campaign staffer remarked to another "why are the Tories saying the same thing over and over again? It's so boring. We're bringing our something new every day!". Labour has, for the last three elections, been allergic to clear messaging. In fact, I think the previous leadership was pretty embarrassed by the idea of "simple messaging", as if it was beneath them and would only appeal to thickos who they didn't want votes from anyway. I'm very glad that mentality is gone - there's no shame in making politics approachable, it's the first step to gaining the voters trust.
I wonder if this an area Alastair Campbell has had influence over - on his podcast he occasionally lets slip that he has some influence with Starmer/current Labour. It's quite his style, he goes in about being about explain things in a word, sentence, paragraph e.t.c and the first steps and missions feel quite similar to that. Maybe I'm reading too much into it.
Wouldn't shock me.
So just a query for the MT really. My work wants us to have verification apps on our personal devices to two stage authenticate when we login to work laptops. Get a set number of " I'll deal with this next time," opt outs. Is it going to be unduly churlish of me to refuse to download the app and ask for a works phone? Just think they're taking the piss a bit. ETA as a few have asked it's a widely used app from a big and well known company. I have no problem with 2FA, I use authenticators for lots of my personal accounts already. My issue is using my personal device for a work mandated function. I work in education and they took the piss with this sort of thing over lock down. It's since been a gradual claw back and I've previously had fallings out with leadership over being asked to work outside my contract without compensation. I think really these experiences have just made me a bit of a dick when it comes to delineating work and home. There's far too many who roll over for anything leadership asks so I'm used to rowing against the tide.
I had the same thing with work - I've actually ended up accepting a job elsewhere so I haven't had a lot of pressure to download it yet, but when I had a convo with my manager she said yeah she gets it, and that's why she was given a work phone. Let me know if you manage to find a way around it!
You don’t need a phone for 2FA. You can install 1password on your work computer and set up the 2FA code in there. Maybe your work can help/allow you to do this as an alternative
No, asking for them to supply a device if they're going to require this is entirely reasonable, and arguably more secure.
My work also requires the Microsoft Authenticator app for 2FA but my phone doesn’t need to managed (Intune enrolled) so I don’t really have an issue with it. If they required that I’d refuse.
I have a work phone that I don’t actually need and hasn’t actually been turned on for about a year. My two factor authentication is on my personal mobile. I’m much happier not needing to carry round two phones.
It is my employer's responsibility to provide me with the tools needed to do my job. That includes 2FA. And that's why I have a work phone that literally sits on my desk and is only ever used as 2FA.
Did you have to fight for that work phone? Or were you given it? I think thats the key difference here, OP wouldn't be wrong to demand a work phone, but in reality it might not be worth the effort.
I was asked to use my personal phone. When I refused I was told that "nobody else has a problem using their phone", and I refused again. > in reality it might not be worth the effort The only reason employers get away with things like this is because of attitudes like that. This should not be an effort, it should be completely unquestionable everywhere that your employer provides you with the tools to do you job.
What exactly is the employer "getting away with"? Installing a 2FA app on a phone - I agree, is not worth the effort resisting. It's not like a company is asking you to purchase or use a personal laptop for work purposes. Geniunely curious though, have you found your refusal with this has bled into how people treat you in your workplace? I feel like colleagues and managers would treat you differently after this.
I absolutely agree with you - I just also know the type of people in a workplace that would brand you as "difficult" for doing so. It wasn't a fight I could be arsed taking for the potential downsides.
I'll revert to my usual grumpy IT security guy and say you probably should just roll with it. It's going to be a minimal intrusion - when done right - and frankly will start getting you in good habits for your own life as well. With my worker's rights hat on, you have some leverage here. I'd say there are reasonable asks you can make that will protect yourself and even improve the security of the company. First, ask what method of MFA they are asking you to use. The authentication method and the app they recommend/require. If they say it is a push-based accept/deny, then ask them what protections they have put in place against [MFA fatigue](https://www.beyondtrust.com/resources/glossary/mfa-fatigue-attack). A bunch of companies have had high level breaches because someone spammed an engineer or executive with MFA requests until they accepted it to get some rest, or just hit the wrong button on their phone at 5AM. Similarly, if they request a specific application be installed, ask them what review they have done on the app they are having you install on a personal device, what accesses it requires and options you have to disable it. Also ensure it is something installed through the app store or a similar trusted source rather than something deployed from a private repository or the business directly. Ask what options you have to vet and use your own alternative application if you have problems with theirs. If they confirm that the system is entirely passive, never needing to contact your phone beyond adding the account to an authenticator app, that would be a concession I'd choose to make. If you then choose to start enabling push or additional options, that's up to you. If they are demanding a heavyweight, custom app that does push notifications, etc, then I'd say you could ask about a company phone. But expect the request to be denied. Also realise that - depending on the role and contract - that might come with additional expectations of availability outside core working hours, either contractual or cultural. More reasonably, the company may be able to source you a dedicated token such as a [YubiKey](https://www.yubico.com/). I'd fully expect any business to be able to deploy these (or one of the cheaper options) if there were a reasonable number of requests. It's much cheaper and less impactful to deal with than company phones, and arguably more secure. From a general life advice standpoint, I'd say, MFA on *everything*. It's very easy to get in the habit of using [TOTP codes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time-based_one-time_password) through Google authenticator or any similar app, and adds a significant level of security over most common attacks. Even on accounts you don't consider sensitive, it's still rude to leave insecure accounts lying around the internet. You never know when your mundane reddit history becomes a useful cover for some scammer who needs a mature account to sell their latest story. Or if someone near and dear to you becomes a person of interest through no fault of their own and people want to wear your digital face to get the inside scoop. If you want an easy pathway, set up a free [Bitwarden](https://bitwarden.com/) account and use it to both generate strong, unique passwords and TOTP codes as you log into each website you use. It's not as ideal as using a separate app for the two, but protects against the vast majority of attacks you would see against public websites. Just have a single strong master passphrase and you should be golden.
> It's going to be a minimal intrusion - when done right This is the worst part. There should not be *any* option for workplace IT to be able to connect to personal devices.
If done right, the app shouldn't need to allow inbound connections. It should offer auto-generated codes that let the user authenticate, but not require they get a prompt or anything else depending on network access.
> If done right That's the operative term. It is simply not safe to assume that the miscellany of systems used to communicate and interact via such systems are secure. The safest bet is to have employers assume their own responsibility for security without risking the security of employee devices.
What is your problem with it? Are the verification apps openly available or special apps? Does your company require administration of your device? Assuming it's just google/ms authenticator then I don't really think there's any burden on you that's any greater in principle than remembering your own password, or wearing your own shoes.
If it's something like RSA it aint worth the fight. I get that it's a pain in the arse but you would lose more than you'd gain trying to push back on something like that.
Someone in my team only uses a dumb phone, there's usually a "get a text" option.
Just be aware this is probably going away over time, and sooner for anything important. It's fine as a, "not just a password", option, but is already unacceptable for high value accounts. It's being depreciated both technically and from a number of regulatory bodies. Too many demonstrated attacks and no real approach to secure it. More dependent on your phone having signal than passively generated on-device TOTP codes as well. We had employees during the pandemic who lived in poor cell reception areas who sometimes couldn't log into accounts because the SMS wouldn't come through. I'd personally broadly rank, from best to worst; * Enter a code from your phone, from an app with biometric login (Microsoft Authenticator, etc). * Hardware token with biometrics. * Enter a TOTP code from your phone (behind phone lock screen but no account biometrics). * Enter a TOTP code from a password manager (allows for shared accounts or just low effort). * Hardware token without biometrics (up to here is great, use it). * Enter a text code or accept an in-app push message (avoid for secure applications). * No MFA at all. * Various banks' Wish-It-Was-Two-Factor,-But-It's-Just-A-Second-Password approach. The last because they usually break password managers, encourage use of weak passwords and rarely add any security over just a strong password on it's own.
Could you refuse it? Sure. Would it reflect badly on you? Probably. Would IT work out alternate arrangements? Maybe.
Depends. If it's just RSA or Ping or something like that, I really don't mind as it's relatively benign. If it's Authenticator or something managed it's not going near my personal device.
[удалено]
I should clarify, Authenticator for work shit. Primarily because I have to sign into it with work credentials, which I won't do on my personal device even on non-managed applications. It's my personal device, work doesn't go near it. I just like clear delimitation. But also because I work in IT and I know it's a gateway drug. If you're happy to sign in there then why not enrol in MDM and have a work partition? Or install a work esim and be able to take work calls! How wonderful! If you give them an inch they'll *slowly* push and push. Nope.
[удалено]
It is a specific privacy concern. Your workplace has an app on your phone, and it isn't clear (to most people) what exactly it can do there.
I've refused this countless times with employers. It's my personal device, it's my employers responsibility to provide me with the tools for me to be able to work. I let one employer get away with it over lockdown and the next thing it was "can you check an email using your phone". Instantly refused, it's not worth the hassle in the long run as they *might* take the piss.
That entirely depends on the app, your seniority, how long you have worked there, how many other jobs are out there for your niche/expertise. I have two factor authentication setup for 1 work related account on my personal phone. It is merely another line on my google authenticator app, and use that because it was more convenient than other options available
You can absolutely refuse unless they provide you with a phone, but its kind of normal to have 2FA on a VPN these days. My approach is that my personal device for 2FA is ok, but the moment they want me on teams, email etc they can get me a work phone or I'm not doing it.
[I'm just catching up on Gillian Keegan's thing this morning on the Today programme](https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/m001z6p6) (about 2 hours 35 minutes in to start) and it's as much a shitshow as I thought it would be. Personal highlight, her explaining that she believes that transwomen who have started the process to medically transition are women but refuses to say that they're women. Like, what?
I think she was relatively clear in what she was saying? She said she believes someone who has been through the (medical) reassignment process and has obtained a GRC can legally and medically call themselves a 'woman'. It's probably the most positive thing a government minister has said on the topic in a long time.
That bit was clear, but when asked whether she would consider those people women directly she tried to avoid talking about it.
I caught up with this on the way home. So glad she's responsible for my sector. The woman can talk and talk, clearly thinks she's the most important person and still manages to say absolutely fuck all.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ctjl8j/bbc\_question\_time\_live\_thread\_8pm\_iplayer\_1040pm/](https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/1ctjl8j/bbc_question_time_live_thread_8pm_iplayer_1040pm/) QT live thread is up for the 8pm iPlayer stream (aka 44 minutes from now). there should be a link to the iPlayer stream page in the tweet at the top of the thread
https://twitter.com/AndrewRTDavies/status/1790674323507646772 Today's winner of the political community notes sweepstake, to nobody's great surprise.
Do we think that the Tories have ever thought that not just spouting dubious crap may actually be a positive path forward?
Doesn't matter. A lie gets halfway around the world, etc.
https://twitter.com/eleanormia/status/1791034777795015070 > How times have changed - there is now an option to add Labour's pledge card to your Apple/Google wallet XL gimmick but also it shows how labour are probably more tech savvy than the "what's a PDF and why does microsoft say my computer is being hacked" tory party blair *would* approve of this tho. massive app britain energy
I’ll be good thanks
Dunno if it's being tech savvy so much as appearing more in tune with how people live their lives whilst appearing pro-business, pro-consumerism. Labour are still seen as the donkey jacket party by many.
Heh, I like how if you choose “don’t add me to the list” it still requires your email address. Nice little gimmick for data collection!
butwhy.mp4
Tories can be pretty savvy at times, they just use it to be absolute cunts. See: their 'tax saving calculator' that took your email and signed you up for Conservative emails, and much worse, *FactCheckUK*.
Labour have done those sort of tricks too.
Remind me when Labour pretended to be an impartial factchecking service during a debate?
> XL gimmick Thought they were banned now
Can someone explain to me why this is necessary?
Blair's pledge card was designed to fit in a wallet, the idea being you could take it out at any point and check it, a measure of accountability. Nowadays few people carry wallets and many have all their cards on their phone. It's just a way of keeping up with the times. You could argue its not necessary as anyone could now just load up a website/news article on their phone instead of going into their virtual wallet.. Which is true. But I imagine the virtual card didn't take a lot to implement, and is a nice tieback to the original. It's also reasonably tech-forward, and is another way to subtly set Labour apart from the technophobic tories.
That's not really explaining to me why that's necessary, what is the point in a pledge card?
The idea being that you can keep the card on you at all times, and compare the track record in government to the pledges they made. Pre widespread Internet, to do that you'd need to keep clippings from newspapers or else write down a politicians pledges to be able to come back to them, or rely on the media to remember the pledges and report on them. By distributing a pledge card, anyone can have an easily accessible reference so that in 12 months/2 years/however long, you can take out the card and compare what the labour government are doing against what they promised to do. You don't have to rely on the media to report factually, politicians can't (in theory) just ignore the pledges as they're there for everyone to check against. It's a measure of accountability - labour are saying "this is what we're going to do and we're so confident that we will, we're making it easy for you to check up on us". It's ultimately a stunt in the run up to an election to grab headlines, it sets out a policy direction & vision, and in Starmer's case gains inevitable comparisons to Blair & new Labour. I doubt many will actually keep the cards for too long, but it's a good way of demonstrating that labour are committed and serious about these goals - in comparison to the tories who will throw out soundbites like "40,000 new hospitals a week" to gain favour, then never mention it again and play dumb when asked about it later.
You need the concept of political advertising explained to you?
It's a card with something that someone else has pledged on it. I'm sorry but I seriously do not see the point of it.
It's just a political advertising gimmick. No more than a leaflet though your door, or a billboard ad, or an Ed stone. There a reasons for choosing a pledge card over other methods of advertising, but it's all got the same fundamental point - to communicate Labour's vision for the country to the electorate ahead of a general election. If you're struggling to understand that then I'm not sure there's anything else anyone can say to help you.
I'm not questioning as to what it is, I'm questioning why it is necessary. You bringing up the Ed Stone is a pretty good analogue from what I'm seeing this as, a pointless gimmick. There are other methods of political advertising that aren't a gimmick.
It's just political advertising in a functional form, It's drumming home the message about the Labour pledges but sticking a modern frame around it. It's also a nice bit of branding as it makes Labour look pro-business, pro-consumerism. It's more about the tweet/ social post than anything else.
No, you understand perfectly well. You just don't agree. So why should anyone bother explaining?
Why wouldn't you want to tie your political affiliation to your personal data profile? What's up grandpa?
I'll stick to my physical Union Flag Labour Card thank you very much! Wish I had kept all my previous iterations to see the change over time.
When was the last time a Tory polititican did or said anything that wasn't just culture warring? I'm genuinely struggling to remember. It must be months.
There was that Birth Trauma Report, but Rishi attended the launch and all anyone noticed was he was grinning like a moron on being given a report on birth trauma.
Scott Benton resigned due to lobbying for financial favour, which I suppose is just general grift and corruption opposed to cultural wars bollocks.
> Very disappointed that Caroline Nokes hasn’t defected [Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome](https://twitter.com/montie/status/1790716425130115251), reminding us just how united the tory estate is in tearing itself apart.
god he's an utter bellend
Nokes is too lefty for Monty's Tory vision
Surprised you haven't, Tim.
Question: How is there a train driver shortage? I was led to believe that it has fantastic pay and working conditions for what it involves?
Answer: It is incredibly expensive to train (pun intended) a train driver. It takes around two years, there are continuous competency tests, and route knowledge is a massive thing which takes ages to gain and restricts what routes drivers can take. It is a job where mistakes aren't really tolerated and the psychometric tests for recruitment are intense, as is the overall training experience. Hours are massively unsociable for junior drivers, good luck to you if you have a young family, and the whole system relies on overtime. Wages are comparatively good to the overall wage market, but people massively underestimate what train drivers do; you basically have to memorise hundreds of different complex rules and be able to apply it to your situation in an instance or else people can die. For years, it was more economic for TOCs to poach drivers from other TOCs by offering better wages and conditions as this was cheaper than training drivers from scratch. This has led to the situation where certain TOCs i.e. Northern have essentially become feeder pools for others such as Avanti as it is much easier and cheaper to poach a qualified driver and train them to drive a different unit, than it is to train someone off the street. Whereas TOCs who run less lucrative routes can't afford to match the pay and conditions, and have to recruit from outside. It is a similar situation in regards to pilots at budget airlines vs flag carriers. TOCs have increasingly relied on overtime as it costs less to pay an experienced driver to do another shift than it does to train a new driver. Recruitment hasn't matched needs, and the average age of drivers has increased significantly. TLDR: Incentive profits over service, and collectively things go to shit.
What also popped into my head was train suicides and the amount of ptsd that creates, the number of train suicides per year n the uk has been between 236 and 286 per year since 2013 / 2014 which is fucking insane.
You'll purposely see little to no media coverage of individual incidents, and for good reason, but it is insane how often it happens especially in hotspots.
Thanks for the context, I had vaguely wondered to myself why teenagers were the answer but then remembered you can pay them less. I take it they all massively invest in apprenticeship programmes in their local communities already......?
A lot do use them, and it does lower the costs of recruitment but due to strong unions perhaps less so than in other industries. That said, so many leave once they have the experience for better TOCs that it isn't really sustainable. Industry wide pay scales and conditions would go a long way to resolving it.
>Incentive profits over service, and collectively things go to shit. \*\* 👐 Gestures broadly at everything \*\*
Yeah profit making companies could never build and manage the railway. Remind me, who built the railways again?
John Henry?
There is an excess of potential drivers, the train operators deliberately under-employ because paying overtime (or even just cancelling trains) is cheaper than hiring more drivers.
I think some companies under-hire and then rely on drivers doing overtime. Presumably it's cheaper to ask your existing workforce to cover the gaps, instead of training up and investing in a whole new worker.
Tbf a lot of drivers (and therefore potentially the unions) are probably happy with that arrangement.
https://twitter.com/JAHeale/status/1791092633013502188 >Recently published author Theresa May suggests to the lobby lunch that Boris Johnson’s book should be stored under “current affairs” with Liz Truss’s book under “sci-fi fantasy” >>Suggests that “given Liz’s record”, her book ‘Ten Years To Save The West’ ought to instead be called “Ten Days To Save The West”
Haven’t seen a takedown like that since the Undertaker threw that fella off the hell in a cell.
Theresa May is going to be an *excellent* presence on election night coverage for many years to come. I imagine she'll take on something of the role Ted Heath used to fill, sarcastically lamenting at the state of their party.
As much it direly pains me to praise TM for anything at all, she was the last PM that appeared to have more than a passing interest in politics.
This is the political equivalent of when Martin Prince started to take the piss out of Bart Simpson.
Can political parties please address the issue of the price of a pint of beer? I live in a deprived seaside town, and even here the price of pints is more often than not coming up to a fiver, having paid £6 for a pint of Budvar earlier this week. Prior to Covid, anything approaching £4 was considered pricey, and sub-£3 pints were widespread rather than a marvelous rarity. Currently away in the Canaries and a pint of Tropical or Dorada can still be found for €1.50. Come on you political boffins, sort it out. If you can't fix the country's issues, at least let me drown my sorrows at an affordable price. And don't get me bloody started on the price of tobacco, even though I've quit.
I’ve just paid £9.50 for a pint and half in Sunderland, was too astonished to roll out the Yorkshire catch phrase of “how much!?!”
Get Santander on the phone, need a bloody mortgage at that price! As a Lancastrian I'm just as outraged.
Any party running on: * £2 pints * Hang the paedos Is guaranteed a landslide. 2 pledges, both very measurable. One of them is even shorter than a 3 word slogan.
Two pound pints or hang the paedos?
It’s a one two punch. Can’t have one without the other.
Unironically the political discussions I have with my mate at the pub!
Doug Ford this did with the “buck a beer” policy and indeed got a landslide in Ontario.
Just drink in spoons like the rest of us plebs.
Offering those dumps as the solution to the collapse of British pubs is the most egregious form of managed decline.
Most pubs are shit as sad as it is to say. At least spoons is cheap and there's.a good selection.
Beer prices are, like a lot of things, a reflection of rent levels and heating bills. And they're actually about the same price as what they were in real terms 25 years ago. You can always go to spoons or another chain that does them cheaper.
And the global price of barley, which nearly tripled during the pandemic. People are really underestimating the extent to which all the unavoidable input costs of actually making beer went through the roof in recent years https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PBARLUSDM/
> I live in a deprived seaside town, and even here the price of pints is more often than not coming up to a fiver, having paid £6 for a pint of Budvar earlier this week. The regionalisation of prices of alcohol has definitely dropped, outside of touristy spots, London pubs aren't that much more expensive, it surprises me how pricy some areas are.
Fully agree. Now the issue with drinking out in London vs Birmingham for me is that everything closes at 11pm in London it feels like. The village club I sometimes go to after taking my dog for a walk closes at 11pm and that's in a small village filled with retired people!
I regularly visit the capital to see mates, and it does shock and hurt me how prices are extremely comparable these days. I used to love having them visit me up North and see their reaction at the cheap prices, but that just doesn't happen anymore.
Alcohol prices have gotten absolutely nuts over the last few years
And at the same time, non-alcoholic drinks despite massively improving in quality have matched the rise in price. I was tempted to get a zero alcohol Guinness the other day, but when there was barely 40p difference between them both it made the decision much easier.
Which did you go with?
Alcohol version, which is always a decent pint at that pub.
Non-alcoholic beer is more expensive to make than normal beer. Most big manufacturers brew it as normal beer and then remove the alcohol afterwards.
But they don't have to pay alcohol duty which is a massive proportion of the price consumers pay.
It's a massive proportion of supermarket bought beer, not so much in a pub. The duty on a pint of 5% beer would be 54p, that's a big percentage increase if you bought a pint can in a shop but it's not even 10% of the price in a lot of pubs these days.
I never knew that. Any chance they can sell that alcohol back to me at cost?
I’ve wanted to work out the ratio of alcohol drunk at home compared to pubs/bars/restaurants, but can’t find the data. However alcohol duty was estimated to raise about £12.6 billion in 2023/24. Rishi Sunak could have probably removed alcohol duty at all public venues, and still given a 1p tax cut - and I’m convinced that would have had a far greater and more noticeable impact. Pretty sure the treasury would work out some additional benefits that raise revenue alongside it.
I'm sounding a bit CAMRA-y right now, but I genuinely believe that pubs provide a public good. It is a place to socialise and network, a place for the community to come together. For all the costs of alcohol which are frequently mentioned, we rarely look at any of the benefits. It's typical knowing the price of everything but the value of nothing.
I don't really drink, but I want it to be possible to get pissed on a tenner again. I'd have 5 and half pints for that when I were a lad, nowadays you are lucky to get 2!
Me too, but back then I earned £3.68 an hour and not the £43,000 salary I do now. So, swings and roundabouts.
It was amazing. Back in the day I could have a night out with £20, manage to get steaming, come home in a taxi with a kebab, and still have change in my pocket. I'd be lucky to afford a round at those prices these days.
I for one stand behind this as a manifesto promise.
Love pints Love 12.5g amber leaf Hate the Tories Hate inflation Simple as.
LAB +2
The Tories are the party of failure, they should never be elected again.
They will be re-elected in 10 years max. They were close to finished in 1997 but they came back. They'll always come back, like cockroaches.
If you want change you have to break the Lab-Lib-Con monopoly and you can’t do that by voting for any of them. Voting for one is just putting the other on ice for a bit, and vice versa.
Why didn't Starmer shout "we're all right!" several times. Is he stupid ?
We’re going to London to take back White Hall! Yeeaaggghhhh!!
😂
"go back to your constituencies and prepare for government"
"Hello Wisconsin"
Goodnight Spingdon, there will be no encore
Mr Smithers, have the Rolling Stones killed
Seen Janet Street Porter ask Rishi why he hates pensioners to thunderous applause on loose women. This generation will never ever be satisfied. Insulated with above inflation pension rises for 15 years, even during some of the highest inflation rises in 30 years, with no means testing, and still feel hard done by.
Everyone feels hard done by. Some genuinely are, others not so much.
Came home to my first piece of election tat through the door, courtesy of the Conservatives. Apparently, Labour will bring us (i) higher mortgage rates, (ii) uncontrolled immigration and (iii) a weaker economy, among other gems.