The one and only UK 2024 election thread - July 4

[Insane_Homer]

Growing reports of many phantom Reform candidates

Overwhelmed by the number of emails and messages from voters concerned about "phantom" or super-anonymous Reform UK candidates.

Will try and get back to as many as possible - and watch this space on @BylineTimes in the coming days...

Fartrage and co could be in a bit bother very soon

and

Alex Andreou:
"Nigel Farage's register of interests must be submitted every month, he's going to have to declare everything".

Dorian Lynskey:
"Once it's been translated from Russian".

[Raggs]

Growing reports of many phantom Reform candidates

Overwhelmed by the number of emails and messages from voters concerned about "phantom" or super-anonymous Reform UK candidates.

Will try and get back to as many as possible - and watch this space on @BylineTimes in the coming days...

Fartrage and co could be in a bit bother very soon

and

Alex Andreou:
"Nigel Farage's register of interests must be submitted every month, he's going to have to declare everything".

Dorian Lynskey:
"Once it's been translated from Russian".

Just trying to work out what the hell the outcome of such a scandal would be...

Re-run each election surely? Or only those where the number of votes was big enough to push another party over the line?

And hopefully Farage arrested.

[Biffer]

Growing reports of many phantom Reform candidates

Overwhelmed by the number of emails and messages from voters concerned about "phantom" or super-anonymous Reform UK candidates.

Will try and get back to as many as possible - and watch this space on @BylineTimes in the coming days...

Fartrage and co could be in a bit bother very soon

and

Alex Andreou:
"Nigel Farage's register of interests must be submitted every month, he's going to have to declare everything".

Dorian Lynskey:
"Once it's been translated from Russian".

Some of the stuff about this looks deeply troubling. It’s criminal to put false information on a nomination form, so anyone who put this together is liable for prosecution.

[Insane_Homer]

Just trying to work out what the hell the outcome of such a scandal would be...

Re-run each election surely? Or only those where the number of votes was big enough to push another party over the line?

And hopefully Farage arrested.

The number of candidates determines the party spending limits during the election.

https://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/ ... ding-limit

115 phantom candidates x £54k = £6 million more spending

They could also have gofundme pages like my local cunt, going directly back to Reform Ltd

[epwc]

95% of work place deaths are male.

https://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/fatals.htm

100% of deaths in labour are female

Not quite sure that makes the point that you think it’s making.

tbh I don’t really understand the point you’re making.

If more men are farmers, fishermen and site workers there’s going to be more of them dying.

[Random1]

100% of deaths in labour are female

Not quite sure that makes the point that you think it’s making.

tbh I don’t really understand the point you’re making.

If more men are farmers, fishermen and site workers there’s going to be more of them dying.

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

[epwc]

Double post

[epwc]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

[Paddington Bear]

Hate to stop the sensibles and their conspiracy theories but Matlock is real, both Private Eye and the Guardian have tracked him down. They ran a whole bunch of paper candidates, shockingly

[Random1]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

[Paddington Bear]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

Hang on - are you saying that workplaces dominated by one gender tend to exhibit traits that are more common within that gender?!?!?

[Random1]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

Hang on - are you saying that workplaces dominated by one gender tend to exhibit traits that are more common within that gender?!?!?

And that different outcomes are influenced the choices made by that cohort.

Edited to soften the language.

[Random1]

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

Hang on - are you saying that workplaces dominated by one gender tend to exhibit traits that are more common within that gender?!?!?

And that different outcomes are influenced by the choices made by that cohort.

Edited to soften the language.

[Calculon]

Would think the biggest reason for differences in pay is because women have babies. Had to cover for two colleagues this last year who went on maternity leave.

[Uncle fester]

Okay, I'll bite: what is supposed to be a 'female coded society' ?
I appreciate modern society isn't as focused on the men being dominant, and it might be more 'woke', but how is that coded for/by females?
It may be harder for many men to work out their role and identity in these modern times, but to label society as 'female coded', you create half of the issue.

Paddington mentioned school in there. My direct and vicarious experience as a young male teacher was that female teachers just won't allow boys the same behavioural latitude that male teachers will. They're very quick to clamp down on harmless rough-housing between friends or general boistrousness.

The school I worked at had dedicated STEM programs for the girls, but not the boys. They had dedicated assemblies on (or around if the dates didn't fit) international women's day, but not international men's day. A lot more assembly time devoted to inspiring women and feminism. Which is difficult to challenge as a staff member when outnumbered.

I'm sure a lot of female students went to female teachers rather than me if they had issues they wanted to discuss, a lot of the male ones wouldn't have had a similar option because the gender balance of staff was so skewed. And even if they did go to a female teacher, they're not going to be able to dispense the same advice or understand a problem a boy brings them in the same way that a male teacher would get or propose solutions that would work with other males. Cuts the other way too. Despite best intentions I wouldn't be able to advise a girl as I would a boy, we just have very different lived, gendered experience.

People wring hands over the popularity of Andrew Tate among young men and some of the indications we're beginning to see that they skew more to the right politically, but I get it. Leaving aside whether they're right or wrong a lot of young men end up feeling like it's a woman's world and that men are being left behind, yet they frequently encounter a dominant societal narrative that refuses to acknowledge that viewpoint and tells them they remain more privileged. They often feel dismissed and belittled, so they gravitate to people and ideas that don't make them feel that way.

The differential in opportunity and outcomes is still very real, as it is for class and colour. This permeates every strand of life in the UK.

I understand the likes of Tate having a receptive audience, but that audience is not at fault here. It's a lot easier to point and scream "Wokery" than it is to tackle multi-layered problems of gender, class, race, lack of level playing fields etc.

My go-to is always the three people at a table with ten biscuits on a plate in the middle. One person reaches over and takes nine biscuits. Another reaches for the last biscuit and the first person turns to the third and says, "They're trying to steal your biscuit"

Tate and others are the useful idiots of the person with the nine biscuits.

Love this analogy.

[Uncle fester]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Set by the market. No shortage of brickies and farm labourers.

[epwc]

Set by the market. No shortage of brickies and farm labourers.

Yep.

Having recently had a person work for us that had spent decades as a broker in the city I would say a good site labourer is worth much more. I dont set the rates.

I agree that pregnancy can be an issue but I have a childless friend who’s been at Ove Arup for decades (a progressive employer), she hasn’t progressed at the same rate as her male peers

[yermum]

No shortage of brickies.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mar ... ckies.html

massive shortage of brickies.

[Raggs]

So they found one of the invisibile reform candidates (the main one the articles have been written on). They touched up his picture to change the colour of his tie apparently...

[tabascoboy]

Not sure if the Reform candidates in question were fake ID and non-existent, but it seems that they touted around for supporters willing to have their name used no matter where they lived. With no actual chance of winning the seat, no involvement in local campaigning it didn't matter whether the person would be able or willing to take their seat in the HoP and represent the constituency and people as they should. Kinda wishing that one of them had won now and the person and party having to all take the consequences, when the voters found out.

[Dinsdale Piranha]

No shortage of brickies.

https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/mar ... ckies.html

massive shortage of brickies.

Rates for brickies on commercial jobs is a good economic indicator. During the busy times rates can be triple the bad times.

[Biffer]

I thought we were talking about men not having it easier than women?

Dying at work is a good example

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

[Raggs]

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

Do they? Last time I looked into it, it was actually pretty equal for most situations. Once other factors were taken into account (delayed career progression due to maternity leave, raising family etc), often working fewer hours for the same reason. Once all these were included, per hours per experience etc it was actually fairly close. Except for waiting on those last few top level CEO holders to pop their clogs, as they've held these sort of positions for longer than the push for equality has gone on.

[Simian]

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

Do they? Last time I looked into it, it was actually pretty equal for most situations. Once other factors were taken into account (delayed career progression due to maternity leave, raising family etc), often working fewer hours for the same reason. Once all these were included, per hours per experience etc it was actually fairly close. Except for waiting on those last few top level CEO holders to pop their clogs, as they've held these sort of positions for longer than the push for equality has gone on.

The most recent (2023) ONS statistics show a male-biased pay gap in pay per hour worked for each of the nine biggest employment sectors.

[sturginho]

Not sure if the Reform candidates in question were fake ID and non-existent, but it seems that they touted around for supporters willing to have their name used no matter where they lived. With no actual chance of winning the seat, no involvement in local campaigning it didn't matter whether the person would be able or willing to take their seat in the HoP and represent the constituency and people as they should. Kinda wishing that one of them had won now and the person and party having to all take the consequences, when the voters found out.

It does seem that you now need more proof of identity to be allowed to vote than to stand in an election

[robmatic]

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

Do they? Last time I looked into it, it was actually pretty equal for most situations. Once other factors were taken into account (delayed career progression due to maternity leave, raising family etc), often working fewer hours for the same reason. Once all these were included, per hours per experience etc it was actually fairly close. Except for waiting on those last few top level CEO holders to pop their clogs, as they've held these sort of positions for longer than the push for equality has gone on.

Yeah, I think most employers are keen to avoid the legal jeopardy of unequal pay given the fact that there is pretty clear legislation requiring equal pay for equal work. And large organisations tend to have standardised pay scales at the bottom of the hierarchy where everyone gets the same mediocre wage.

There is probably more scope for discrimination in upper management or leadership roles though.

Pay inequality would also be more evident in hiring practices as well. It is a bit of a cheat code for a company's leadership if they get the same output from their employees but get to pay them a significant percentage less. Surely you would only hire women?

[Raggs]

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

Do they? Last time I looked into it, it was actually pretty equal for most situations. Once other factors were taken into account (delayed career progression due to maternity leave, raising family etc), often working fewer hours for the same reason. Once all these were included, per hours per experience etc it was actually fairly close. Except for waiting on those last few top level CEO holders to pop their clogs, as they've held these sort of positions for longer than the push for equality has gone on.

The most recent (2023) ONS statistics show a male-biased pay gap in pay per hour worked for each of the nine biggest employment sectors.

Again, how does that work? Is it a direct role for role comparison? Or is it an over reaching thing. Where having male CEO's skews it massively. Where not taking long breaks in your career will ensure you are on a higher pay scale etc.

I have no doubt that women are paid less on average than men, but that doesn't immediately show that there is a discrepancy in pay levels, there's a lot of things that can influence it. Managers are paid more than their team members, people with more qualifications/experience are paid more than those without.

If someone is taking more time off on average for paternity/maternity, raising family, switching to part time work etc then they will be on lower pay than someone of equal age who has not taken that time off, they also will not be as qualified for promotion etc.

[tabascoboy]

Not sure if the Reform candidates in question were fake ID and non-existent, but it seems that they touted around for supporters willing to have their name used no matter where they lived. With no actual chance of winning the seat, no involvement in local campaigning it didn't matter whether the person would be able or willing to take their seat in the HoP and represent the constituency and people as they should. Kinda wishing that one of them had won now and the person and party having to all take the consequences, when the voters found out.

It does seem that you now need more proof of identity to be allowed to vote than to stand in an election

Rather remarkably many of these candidates who turn out to be real were "badly ill on election day and unable to appear for the count"

[Random1]

No still not getting it,

Men choose their jobs, they also choose whether to protect themselves properly at work. I can say from personal knowledge on building sites that it’s always a challenge to get blokes to wear PPE on site.

They have chosen risky career paths and then to exacerbate that risk.

So men choose riskier careers. I agree on this.

Do you not feel they should be paid more for taking more dangerous jobs?

Or, in other words; Women choose their jobs that, overall, are less risky. These choices therefore play a significant role in pay differences between the sexes.

Except the problem is women get paid less for doing the same jobs in pretty much every sector.

You read the findings from the Uber study at Stanford? https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf

It’s given a brilliant insight into pay differentials between the sexes.

In summary, they found that men earned 7% more per hour (the ‘per hour’ metric tried to control out the variable of total hours worked).

The study found three reasons for the difference;


1 - men were more likely to work in high density customer areas (ie they were more likely to work in high crime areas around pubs and clubs in city centres).

2 - men worked more overall hours and so had built up a greater experience level, which resulted in better knowledge on how to avoid traffic etc.

3 - men drove faster!

This study reviewed over 1 million drivers - so a huge sample size.

It’s why I found the comment about more fatalities in the workplace being male interesting. Yes, it’s a choice, based upon risk appetite, and in general, men have a greater risk appetite; hence they earn more in many cases.

For me, risk appetite is responsible for a lot of the gender pay gap; the willingness to move towards work and away from support networks, the willingness to do dangerous jobs, the willingness to risk upsetting the boss by asking for a raise, the willingness to take a chance and move to a new job.

It can lead to men earning more. It can also lead to utter failure and stuff like homelessness and suicide.

It’s also why I think much of the gender pay gap conversation frustrating, as focussing on the outcome of pay misses that the sexes have differences at a population scale. Just because we don’t earn the same, doesn’t mean there’s wholesale systemic discrimination.

[Raggs]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

[Biffer]

I'm interested to know how you run a country without any bureaucrats.

[epwc]

I'm interested to know how you run a country without any bureaucrats.

Anarchy

[Sinkers]

Has a hint of a UK project 2025 about it.

[Random1]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

Now, I’m not saying I completely agree with the points he makes, as he is a zealot on some aspects, but if you want to understand the other side’s argument on this; you’d do worse than to watch this;

[epwc]

Dr David Starkey is a racist fuckwit

[C69]

Dr David Starkey is a racist fuckwit

This

[Raggs]

I got 10 minutes in or so, and yes, he's making the same complaints, just being more of an ass and a bore about it.

So the poor Tories couldn't do what they want because other people didn't let them. It's all someone else's fault.

In theory then, Labour shouldn't be able to do any better, and we're all buggered regardless.

[SaintK]

I got 10 minutes in or so, and yes, he's making the same complaints, just being more of an ass and a bore about it.

So the poor Tories couldn't do what they want because other people didn't let them. It's all someone else's fault.

In theory then, Labour shouldn't be able to do any better, and we're all buggered regardless.

9 minutes more than me.
Cunt of a man.

[sturginho]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

[Raggs]

So being bored and wondering if it'll be a bit of a giggle, I've started to watch the PopCon conference on youtube

https://www.youtube.com/live/X5CPSZZZ6h0

First proper speaker, representing popcon, has basically just said it's not the tories fault that they didn't manage deliver the values of lower tax, less regulation, controlled borders etc, but rather the systems/institutions that are setup in the country (over the past 25 years) that prevent this. Says that should they get in power again, they need to change the background before they can get around to bringing around proper change (why they didn't do this in the last 14 years, who knows...).

He's also saying that getting out of the EU was big, but we just handed over the power to beaurocrats in whitehall...

I thought the point of Brexit was that we wanted BRITISH (and therefore superior) institutions in charge instead of "foreign" ones

Well the other guy above stated that actually it wasn't Europe that was the issue, it was Blair and his reforms.