I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
and being a doctor?
No. Indeed I know plenty of single doctors without mates, of both sexes.
Marriage and family has been possible for the vast majority of men in this country for centuries. The idea that only 10% of men can attract mates by being dominant, rich and handsome is an incel myth to justify misogyny.
No it isn't. Harsh but true, given the option most women would be one of five Mrs Beckhams, say, than the one and only Mrs Z. The system is rigged in favour of the mr Zs.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
It's impossible to generalise and everyone is different. I've heard anecdotally the restrictions have caused a huge rise in incidents of physical and mental abuse reported (I dread to think about the unreported and do we have the capacity of care workers to properly investigate all these reports?). Living alone may be awful - trapped in an abusive relationship under restriction may be as valid a definition of purgatory.
Again, impossible to generalise - there's no question many have suffered. There's also no question some have thrived.
Everyone has their experiences and these tend to be re-enforced because, as has oft been said "people like people like themselves".
‘You can meet 1 other person from outside your household in an outdoor, public place. But please keep 2 metres apart. Please stick with the rules and don’t take risks’ -Matt Hancock to the nation 15 May 2020
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
So it was 140 a head in central London? That's pathetic.
2 bottles of gin between 10 mind. I have a bottle of gin here which says it's 30 units, so av 6 units each before half a bottle of wine.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
2 bottles of gin between 10?! May be a gift? Or a minimum spend issue?
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
In the early 90s, there was the looming "pensions gap" crisis - due to falling birthrates, all the pay-as-you-go social security systems were due to go bankrupt.
The mooted solution was defined pension pots, per tax payer.
The politicians really didn't like this, since it meant telling people to pay more and (at least initially) get less.
A major part of the advocacy for mass immigration was, that instead of such measures, we would just import enough young people to "re-inflate" the population pyramid.
IF, as seems quite likely, the world population stops growing and begins the shrink, that will become less and less of an option.
The pay-as-you-go schemes can't survive a shrinking population, during the phase when we have lots of old people living longer, and less employed people paying for them.
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
Another (unpopular) option would be to reduce the number of young people in higher education and have them entering work earlier.
In the early 90s, there was the looming "pensions gap" crisis - due to falling birthrates, all the pay-as-you-go social security systems were due to go bankrupt.
The mooted solution was defined pension pots, per tax payer.
The politicians really didn't like this, since it meant telling people to pay more and (at least initially) get less.
A major part of the advocacy for mass immigration was, that instead of such measures, we would just import enough young people to "re-inflate" the population pyramid.
IF, as seems quite likely, the world population stops growing and begins the shrink, that will become less and less of an option.
The pay-as-you-go schemes can't survive a shrinking population, during the phase when we have lots of old people living longer, and less employed people paying for them.
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
Another (unpopular) option would be to reduce the number of young people in higher education and have them entering work earlier.
better to cut out non-jobs .Social media virtue signalling stuff by companies that is false anyway and gets about 10 views . Also diversity social engineers within workplaces.Covid testing is another !
Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
I think that's the crucial progress Starmer has made though one might argue as much a result of Johnson and the Conservatives' own errors.
The key is what will he offer to the British people in 2024? It's interesting to hear Rachel Reeves offer a very different economic policy to John McConnell and it doesn't sound as though there will be anything to scare "middle Britain" on that side.
Starmer comes across to this observer as dull but competent. I'd feel perfectly happy with him as PM which certainly wasn't the case with his predecessor.
You don't have to produce a radical manifesto to win - Thatcher's 1979 offering was much less radical than Heath's in 1970 and Blair's 1997 offering was dull compared to the 1945 Attlee proposals. Indeed, I'd argue short of a clear existential crisis, "more of the same but done better" goes a long way.
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
40% uplift is "marginal"...
There speaks the 0.1%
In the scheme of expenditure they sign off? Its marginal. Don't be silly.
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Fertility rate will only drop in the next few years.
My gf and other women I know consider the last two years written off, wasted, so will delay any children until that year in Australia is done, or all the Munros climbed, or a Masters degree etc etc
I'm fully onboard with this cos I want to do all that too.
Fertility rate will only drop in the next few years.
My gf and other women I know consider the last two years written off, wasted, so will delay any children until that year in Australia is done, or all the Munros climbed, or a Masters degree etc etc
I'm fully onboard with this cos I want to do all that too.
Holy crap , I can just imagine all the ladies deciding which of those 3 are the top of their list, only on PB awash with Hooray's and Henrietta's could you read such puerile crap.
I think all three are pretty cool, tbh, though maybe that's just my exceptionally boring group of friends Hillwalking/the outdoors are quite in fashion at the mo though.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
2 bottles of gin between 10?! May be a gift? Or a minimum spend issue?
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
It isn't outrageous. Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense. I spent a grand on a curry a decade ago, paid and reclaimed several grand plus nights out.
The only time there was any bother was when I was the most senior sober manager and stepped in to settle the bill. That the alcohol bill was higher than the food bill created some questions ("how many bottles of wine???") answered by pointing out I wasn't the organising manager and don't drink wine...
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
It's rare I find myself in agreement with @HYUFD but his position on immigration isn't wholly unreasonable. I'd add the caveat we should set ourselves up as educators - providing the skills which those who benefit from the education we offer can take back to their own countries and work toward the prosperity of their own people.
Obviously, every developed country will be competing for skills from developing countries and that already happens. If your Syrian refugee has the right skills, they can apply to go to Australia, New Zealand and Canada as much as the UK. What we should be offering through our education system is the opportunity for skill development and enhancement.
The other side of it, as you say, is how do we get done the jobs no one wants to do? Will there one day be a robot with functioning AI who can keep the streets of East Ham clean and clear 24/7? Perhaps but until that day it needs a person with a cart and a collection of brooms (it seems).
I'd be more excited if we could come up with a solution to the scourge of fly-tipping.
In the early 90s, there was the looming "pensions gap" crisis - due to falling birthrates, all the pay-as-you-go social security systems were due to go bankrupt.
The mooted solution was defined pension pots, per tax payer.
The politicians really didn't like this, since it meant telling people to pay more and (at least initially) get less.
A major part of the advocacy for mass immigration was, that instead of such measures, we would just import enough young people to "re-inflate" the population pyramid.
IF, as seems quite likely, the world population stops growing and begins the shrink, that will become less and less of an option.
The pay-as-you-go schemes can't survive a shrinking population, during the phase when we have lots of old people living longer, and less employed people paying for them.
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
Another (unpopular) option would be to reduce the number of young people in higher education and have them entering work earlier.
better to cut out non-jobs .Social media virtue signalling stuff by companies that is false anyway and gets about 10 views . Also diversity social engineers within workplaces.Covid testing is another !
On Nick P’s point about increasing immigration to boost the working population, the issue is that you risk implementing a solution that has permanent consequences (importing a large number of people who stay) for a problem that may have a limited timespan (how many jobs can be automated and therefore there is less of a pressing need for humans to do the job).
The historical example of that is the importation of tens of thousands of workers from the Indian sub-continent to the Northern mill towns in the 1960s as factories looked for cheap labour. Ten years later, the factories were closed but the towns were permanently changed in their composition. The bosses who took the decision, of course, didn’t have to deal with the consequences.
Different people will have different views on what they think about this - and, if you wanted to be cynical, you’d argue Labour would of course promote a policy that supports widespread immigration as it would probably help their long term vote - but we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of what seem like easy fixes.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
2 bottles of gin between 10?! May be a gift? Or a minimum spend issue?
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
A double is 50ml, so if everyone wanted two G&Ts, two bottles are required. They only seem to get half a bottle of wine each, unless there others on the list.
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Housing, of course, is only one factor. There's also the cost of childcare; less pressure/expectation from wider family for people to reproduce; children getting in the way of other lifestyle choices, such as the desire to go travelling or save to buy nicer stuff; and having children getting in the way of people's (typically women's, of course,) career development.
(Snip)
Another issue related to childcare: many people rely on close family members to help raise their kids: uncles and aunts babysitting for an evening; grandparents doing the school run. If you move more than (say) half an hour from family, this can become very difficult to arrange, and means either a greater lifestyle shift or much more expense.
Anecdotally, when I look at my friends and acquaintances of my own age, there seems to be a correlation between proximity of family and the number of kids: the people who have family nearby have an extra child or two over those of us who do not. It'd be interesting to see if others agree with this.
So a question is: are people moving more (as in between areas/regions of the UK) than they did in (say) the 1980s and 1990s?
It's not at all uncommon for posts to appear on our small town's Facebook page to the effect that the poster has just moved here, has a young child and would like to meet other mothers for peer group support. Maybe, of course, we'll see less of such posts as Facebook's demographic changes.
And good morning to one and all.
Another thing to note is that it seems to me that more men are giving up careers to raise children, whilst their wives work. I did this, and so did our best friend (who blames me, as his wife saw me doing it and 'suggested' he might try the same). Again, this might be just my immediate grouping, though. Another friend-of-a-friend in Yorkshire does the same - he chucked in his job in a supermarket and they live on her small wage.
Other parents seem much more into 'shared' parenting: it's yet another anecdote, but probably about a third of the people at pick-ups at our school in the afternoon are male. I'm sure when I was at school, it was almost all the mothers picking kids up.
When I was at school, we walked to and from school by ourselves.
I walked to one of the primary schools I was at - because my dad built our house right next door to it! I had a house key, and I soon learnt I could not use the "Oh, I left my homework at home" excuse, as the teacher would just tell me to to go and get it at break ...
Mr. Charles, biologically, men can hit the genetic jackpot in a way women can't. Some men have fathered hundreds or even thousands of children (Aztec rulers and Genghis Khan spring to mind). Women, however, are always desired and therefore usually, if they reached childbearing age, were wanted by someone. Men could range from being totally rejected to having a huge number of offspring. This may well be why men are likelier to go in for risky endeavours and vary more than women.
Pull off an amazing feat and you're a lot more desirable in a competitive field. All women had to do is not be a nutcase and men were interested.
I realise I'm mixing tenses but I'm oddly sleepy.
This also explains why men dominate utterly the Darwin Awards.
I am a bit skeptical of such biological determinism, or looking at polygamous harems of previous times being relevant to the modern world. The nuclear family and getting married were societal norms until fairly recently, and men with little obvious looks or social capital managed it nearly always.
There is no need to be an alpha male or have a six-pack, certainly I never have. Good personal grooming, dressing well and taking a genuine interest in the thoughts and concerns of a potential partner goes an awfully long way to make the least of us presentable. If you want to go deterministic, even monogamous animals and birds require the male to put up a decent courting display.
You're a medic - a saviour! You're fucking catnip.
It certainly helps as a male to work in a predominantly female environment, less so for female staff. Most people meet their partners through education or work, and the socialising around it. Obviously less so the last 2 years.
I wonder whether the second part (people meeting partners via work) is now declining given the HR / legal implications of firms being responsible for the conduct of their employees. Anecdotally, pre-pandemic, it felt like there were fewer working hook-ups going on than 10-15 years ago.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
2 bottles of gin between 10?! May be a gift? Or a minimum spend issue?
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
A double is 50ml, so if everyone wanted two G&Ts, two bottles are required. They only seem to get half a bottle of wine each, unless there others on the list.
In a place like that a double would most likely be 70ml!
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
Surely Scott's question still stands though - someone is leaking this to damage Truss.
Or just to show what a particularly nasty piece of work she is, public service in my mind. Though thesheeple will be unlikely to grasp the basic fact that Tories are trough swilling crooks.
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
40% uplift is "marginal"...
There speaks the 0.1%
Well, no. I'm about to buy a new pair of running shoes, I might be prepared to pay £140 rather than £100 if I feel I am getting value. (Actually I hope to spend less than that, but I will probably still be spending 40% more than the minimum, to get ones that I like).
So tell me: what 'advances' has he made for human civilisation? I could just about buy the jump-starting electric vehicles, but SpaceX has little relevance to anyone day-to-day - not even with Starlink.
I don't know about the technical details, so perhaps there are reasons why this won't work, but isn't Starlink going to have a huge effect on authoritarian countries that try to control access to the internet?
This is a political/economic problem not a technical problem. Musk's spent a load of money building factories in China that could be confiscated on a whim, and the satellites presumably know which part of the world they're transmitting data to. He's not going to be serving unfiltered internet data in defiance of Chinese law. I doubt he'll risk upsetting *any* authoritarian government over it, they'll tell him he has to route the data though their censors and he'll route the data through their censors.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Never had to worry about it but I thought it used to be any more than 2 days off and you needed doctor's note to be sure you got sick pay. When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Housing, of course, is only one factor. There's also the cost of childcare; less pressure/expectation from wider family for people to reproduce; children getting in the way of other lifestyle choices, such as the desire to go travelling or save to buy nicer stuff; and having children getting in the way of people's (typically women's, of course,) career development.
(Snip)
Another issue related to childcare: many people rely on close family members to help raise their kids: uncles and aunts babysitting for an evening; grandparents doing the school run. If you move more than (say) half an hour from family, this can become very difficult to arrange, and means either a greater lifestyle shift or much more expense.
Anecdotally, when I look at my friends and acquaintances of my own age, there seems to be a correlation between proximity of family and the number of kids: the people who have family nearby have an extra child or two over those of us who do not. It'd be interesting to see if others agree with this.
So a question is: are people moving more (as in between areas/regions of the UK) than they did in (say) the 1980s and 1990s?
It's not at all uncommon for posts to appear on our small town's Facebook page to the effect that the poster has just moved here, has a young child and would like to meet other mothers for peer group support. Maybe, of course, we'll see less of such posts as Facebook's demographic changes.
And good morning to one and all.
Another thing to note is that it seems to me that more men are giving up careers to raise children, whilst their wives work. I did this, and so did our best friend (who blames me, as his wife saw me doing it and 'suggested' he might try the same). Again, this might be just my immediate grouping, though. Another friend-of-a-friend in Yorkshire does the same - he chucked in his job in a supermarket and they live on her small wage.
Other parents seem much more into 'shared' parenting: it's yet another anecdote, but probably about a third of the people at pick-ups at our school in the afternoon are male. I'm sure when I was at school, it was almost all the mothers picking kids up.
When I was at school, we walked to and from school by ourselves.
I walked to one of the primary schools I was at - because my dad built our house right next door to it! I had a house key, and I soon learnt I could not use the "Oh, I left my homework at home" excuse, as the teacher would just tell me to to go and get it at break ...
Cool. Now you mention it, a friend was son of the caretaker, provided with a detached house next to the school. Though while we are playing Four Yorkshiremen, we did not have homework at junior school.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Never had to worry about it but I thought it used to be any more than 2 days off and you needed doctor's note to be sure you got sick pay. When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
Up to 5 days in a row can be self certified, more than that and an employer may require medical sign off. We require it after 10 working days in a row but by law it's a minimum of 5 days in a row self certified.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
Surely Scott's question still stands though - someone is leaking this to damage Truss.
Or just to show what a particularly nasty piece of work she is, public service in my mind. Though thesheeple will be unlikely to grasp the basic fact that Tories are trough swilling crooks.
That’s the point. If this really is trough swilling then she is easily satisfied.
£12-5 for a starter, £25-30 for a main course, £12-5 for dessert and you have £50-60 a head on food. Plus 5 bottles of wine at £80-100 a bottle and you can easily spend £1,000+ for 10 people. Add the gin and you get to £1,400.
Of course central London prices are ludicrous but that’s a different issue
Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense.
I worked for a company where drinking on the job was strictly forbidden
That's sad.
Many companies do it - particularly where machinery is involved. As a teenager I worked at a site where no alcohol was allowed anywhere on site, and bringing it meant an instant dismissal. That extended to outside the site as well, with the pub right outside the gate being patrolled regularly by staff.
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
I think that's the crucial progress Starmer has made though one might argue as much a result of Johnson and the Conservatives' own errors.
The key is what will he offer to the British people in 2024? It's interesting to hear Rachel Reeves offer a very different economic policy to John McConnell and it doesn't sound as though there will be anything to scare "middle Britain" on that side.
Starmer comes across to this observer as dull but competent. I'd feel perfectly happy with him as PM which certainly wasn't the case with his predecessor.
You don't have to produce a radical manifesto to win - Thatcher's 1979 offering was much less radical than Heath's in 1970 and Blair's 1997 offering was dull compared to the 1945 Attlee proposals. Indeed, I'd argue short of a clear existential crisis, "more of the same but done better" goes a long way.
Labour’s bigger issue is the cultural stuff. The U.K. has moved in the direction of the US where your cultural views are a bigger driver of the vote than your economic views. There are still a lot of people who view Labour as a bunch of Trans-loving, BLM-backing activists who would quite happily throw White Working Class people under the bus, especially given their (alleged) backwards view. Whilst things have been quiet on that front recently because of the pandemic and BJ’s mistakes, the Tories (and the Mail etc) will be ramping this up the closer we get to an election.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
Surely it's horses for courses. I live on my own partly by choice (I have never been lucky enough to find a life partner, and appear to have neither the social skills nor motivation to form relationships) and on balance I'd have it now other way. The last few days have been a bit boring, but in general I get along just fine. Despite the challenge of being locked down in a small flat on my own, I am still glad I live alone.
Maybe people just aren't that important to me, other than for their entertainment value.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
Surely Scott's question still stands though - someone is leaking this to damage Truss.
Or just to show what a particularly nasty piece of work she is, public service in my mind. Though thesheeple will be unlikely to grasp the basic fact that Tories are trough swilling crooks.
That’s the point. If this really is trough swilling then she is easily satisfied.
£12-5 for a starter, £25-30 for a main course, £12-5 for dessert and you have £50-60 a head on food. Plus 5 bottles of wine at £80-100 a bottle and you can easily spend £1,000+ for 10 people. Add the gin and you get to £1,400.
Of course central London prices are ludicrous but that’s a different issue
For us to take clients to an average suite for a Saints game is 300 quid a ticket, some Arsenal suites are over a grand a ticket. Corporate entertaining in Central London at 150 per head is cheap
Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense.
I worked for a company where drinking on the job was strictly forbidden
That's sad.
Many companies do it - particularly where machinery is involved. As a teenager I worked at a site where no alcohol was allowed anywhere on site, and bringing it meant an instant dismissal. That extended to outside the site as well, with the pub right outside the gate being patrolled regularly by staff.
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Yes, but the point is that none of those people are being asked to take a trade delegation from a major ally out for entertainment.
Two N Year pieces this morning saying Starmer has made progress and finally is starting to have won the right to at least be listened to, but a long way to go:
I think that's the crucial progress Starmer has made though one might argue as much a result of Johnson and the Conservatives' own errors.
The key is what will he offer to the British people in 2024? It's interesting to hear Rachel Reeves offer a very different economic policy to John McConnell and it doesn't sound as though there will be anything to scare "middle Britain" on that side.
Starmer comes across to this observer as dull but competent. I'd feel perfectly happy with him as PM which certainly wasn't the case with his predecessor.
You don't have to produce a radical manifesto to win - Thatcher's 1979 offering was much less radical than Heath's in 1970 and Blair's 1997 offering was dull compared to the 1945 Attlee proposals. Indeed, I'd argue short of a clear existential crisis, "more of the same but done better" goes a long way.
Starmer comes across as 'dull but competent' because competence is seen as being dull.
Now Starmer does come across as dull.
But I don't see much evidence of competence.
Rather Starmer is someone who typifies 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' mentality with its resulting tendencies to authoritarianism and micro-management.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Tory reality
depends where the diplomat was from and what sort of trade deal we got with him. Could be money well spent.
Be the first deal she ever made that was in UK's favour. Just feeding her fat face more like, these Tories like living high on the hog at public expense. I bet that if she had to pay her own way it would have been a subway or burger king.
I also wonder if the mix of housing matters. In the UK, we've been good at building city centre flats (not great for raising children) and large houses in new suburbs (unaffordable on one salary). Is there a gap in-between?
I don't think that's right.
I think that flat, or city centre flats - appropriately sized - are fine for bringing up children if that is your chosen lifestyle. There are plenty of places where that has been the pattern for generations if not centuries; a problem comes when a family is in a studio or a one bed, for example. Or if the local housing market is not working properly.
Not sure that eg London is poor in that respect; it is one of the best European cities for green space. You are a little challenged for that, but have all the attractions of London.
At root the housing mix is controlled by the local authority. In estates being built round here at present it is heavily 2 and 3 bed, with perhaps 10% 4 bed. Our local challenge afaics is developers going for more density by reducing garages.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
So almost all of it was spent on booze, how typical.
How much "of expenditure they sign off" is wining and dining their mates?
It was a US trade delegation.
Pick your battles luv
True but, as has been pointed out, someone is gunning for Truss. Personally, I think she’s been stupid at making it obvious she wants to be the next leader. It makes her a target particularly as she doesn’t have a strong base behind her.
Btw, the letter in the Telegraph by the Tory MPs / Peers is interesting. Given the voting on the Red Wall seats, any future leadership contest is going to have a representative of the Blue Collar Conservative wing in the mix and they have sufficient numbers to push a candidate into at least the later rounds of a contest, especially if Red Wall MPs feel such a candidate will help them keep their seats. Also remember Steve Baker - who is clearly involved - is also a very good organiser when it comes to marshalling support.
Which is why the comparison is specious. Imagine having a no drinking rule in our current line of work, Charles. Clients would be extremely unimpressed.
Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense.
I worked for a company where drinking on the job was strictly forbidden
That's sad.
Many companies do it - particularly where machinery is involved. As a teenager I worked at a site where no alcohol was allowed anywhere on site, and bringing it meant an instant dismissal. That extended to outside the site as well, with the pub right outside the gate being patrolled regularly by staff.
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Yes, but the point is that none of those people are being asked to take a trade delegation from a major ally out for entertainment.
That's the context of it.
And context is everything. For all the hair-shirtism that gets displayed by the righteous, we know what reality would have been had Jezbollah somehow found his way into Downing Street. Forget £150 a head trade delegation lunches at a posh club. Would have been £150 a head trade delegation lunches at the Unite venue thats now being investigated for having walls made of 9-bob notes.
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
40% uplift is "marginal"...
There speaks the 0.1%
In the scheme of expenditure they sign off? Its marginal. Don't be silly.
It is obscene given they are penny pinching on people on UC. Something far wrong with you if you cannot see that.
Which is why the comparison is specious. Imagine having a no drinking rule in our current line of work, Charles. Clients would be extremely unimpressed.
I learnt that 20 years ago… went to visit a French client… he asked me to stay for lunch in his private dining room and was deeply upset when I declined wine as it meant he couldn’t open a bottle… never made that mistake again
(He’s just retired and handed me over to his successor)
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
It just shows their type, free and easy spending on themselves , bit different with the plebs. If you think that is fine then good luck to you, you and Charles will make great buddies throwing stale bread to thepeasants. Sanctimonious arsehole.
Perhaps Scott hasn't done much corporate entertaining - or had to justify the expense.
I worked for a company where drinking on the job was strictly forbidden
That's sad.
Many companies do it - particularly where machinery is involved. As a teenager I worked at a site where no alcohol was allowed anywhere on site, and bringing it meant an instant dismissal. That extended to outside the site as well, with the pub right outside the gate being patrolled regularly by staff.
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Yes, but the point is that none of those people are being asked to take a trade delegation from a major ally out for entertainment.
That's the context of it.
Might have been better to have had English wine offered then.
And is anyone really impressed by someone offering wine that expensive ?
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
40% uplift is "marginal"...
There speaks the 0.1%
In the scheme of expenditure they sign off? Its marginal. Don't be silly.
It is obscene given they are penny pinching on people on UC. Something far wrong with you if you cannot see that.
Of course I can see that - and it IS obscene. But I have a major problem with absolutism, especially righteous hair-shirt absolutism.
The UK is now a supplicant. On its knees begging potential trade partners like the US for even the hint of a deal. That means doing the nice things like this kind of lunch. The optics don't look good when you say "what about UC" but they will *never* look good regardless of the party in government.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
That is the other thing. The alternative explanation, if not linked to the donation. They all know (or are related to) each other. Liz Truss is the only one of the four people named who did not go to Eton. Birley the only one not in Boris's government, and Birley's chequebook supported Boris.
Nah. The alternative explanation it’s people think that 5 Hertford Square is a nice and “exclusive” place to go for a dinner (I don’t see what is particular special about it myself). It’s like a private room at a smart restaurant.
For example I do a lot of my dinners at my club. I know I’m going to get a table, good food and it will be a great and unique experience (I take a lot of midwesterners there). If the Daily Mail wanted to attack me for it they would point out that I am one of a couple of thousand members and the profits from the dinners contribute to the overheads that I would otherwise be on the hook for a small percentage of. Does that impact my decision? Absolutely not - never think of it. Could it be made to look bad? Of course.
There's a difference between public money and private money - whether of individuals or privately owned enterprises. There wouldn't be such a fuss if Truss had paid for the meal herself.
Truss shares many of Johnson's weaknesses - flexible views, no obvious driving philosophy or beliefs - a fondness for publicity stunts, and perhaps loose standards. In her favour, she might be a little more hard-working (which isn't difficult) but perhaps a little less intelligent, so she has to be. Expect more stories of this sort to emerge to fill in the blanks...
Of course there is. But the difference between spending £1,400 for a restaurant vs £1,000 for a slightly less nice/expensive (delete to choice) restaurant is marginal. It should be within ministerial discretion.
Only someone with a silver spoon in their mouth and no clue on reality could come out with that. The greedy barstewards should be limited to a sensible amount , ie £20 a head , at most. Why can she not have an M&S sandwich or a Gregg's sausage roll like most plebs have to do with. Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
It just shows their type, free and easy spending on themselves , bit different with the plebs. If you think that is fine then good luck to you, you and Charles will make great buddies throwing stale bread to thepeasants. Sanctimonious arsehole.
You get a like for the last two words - funny lad.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Never had to worry about it but I thought it used to be any more than 2 days off and you needed doctor's note to be sure you got sick pay. When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
Up to 5 days in a row can be self certified, more than that and an employer may require medical sign off. We require it after 10 working days in a row but by law it's a minimum of 5 days in a row self certified.
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
"Conception rates may have fallen due to increased housing costs resulting from population increases"
This is a very interesting idea...
That I was going to do a video on (back when I made YouTube videos).
What I was going to say was "People are economically rational, and when housing costs rise, people respond by - for example - having fewer children so they need less housing. As housing prices fall again, you would expect to see birth rates rise."
And then I looked at a bunch of places where house prices had fallen: the two biggest examples being Japan and Italy, where they have dropped 50% or so in real terms in the last quarter century.
Unfortunately, my thesis didn't play out. Birth rates remained super low in both places.
So... Hmmm...
Housing, of course, is only one factor. There's also the cost of childcare; less pressure/expectation from wider family for people to reproduce; children getting in the way of other lifestyle choices, such as the desire to go travelling or save to buy nicer stuff; and having children getting in the way of people's (typically women's, of course,) career development.
(Snip)
Another issue related to childcare: many people rely on close family members to help raise their kids: uncles and aunts babysitting for an evening; grandparents doing the school run. If you move more than (say) half an hour from family, this can become very difficult to arrange, and means either a greater lifestyle shift or much more expense.
Anecdotally, when I look at my friends and acquaintances of my own age, there seems to be a correlation between proximity of family and the number of kids: the people who have family nearby have an extra child or two over those of us who do not. It'd be interesting to see if others agree with this.
So a question is: are people moving more (as in between areas/regions of the UK) than they did in (say) the 1980s and 1990s?
It's not at all uncommon for posts to appear on our small town's Facebook page to the effect that the poster has just moved here, has a young child and would like to meet other mothers for peer group support. Maybe, of course, we'll see less of such posts as Facebook's demographic changes.
And good morning to one and all.
Another thing to note is that it seems to me that more men are giving up careers to raise children, whilst their wives work. I did this, and so did our best friend (who blames me, as his wife saw me doing it and 'suggested' he might try the same). Again, this might be just my immediate grouping, though. Another friend-of-a-friend in Yorkshire does the same - he chucked in his job in a supermarket and they live on her small wage.
Other parents seem much more into 'shared' parenting: it's yet another anecdote, but probably about a third of the people at pick-ups at our school in the afternoon are male. I'm sure when I was at school, it was almost all the mothers picking kids up.
When I was at school, we walked to and from school by ourselves.
I walked to one of the primary schools I was at - because my dad built our house right next door to it! I had a house key, and I soon learnt I could not use the "Oh, I left my homework at home" excuse, as the teacher would just tell me to to go and get it at break ...
Cool. Now you mention it, a friend was son of the caretaker, provided with a detached house next to the school. Though while we are playing Four Yorkshiremen, we did not have homework at junior school.
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Never had to worry about it but I thought it used to be any more than 2 days off and you needed doctor's note to be sure you got sick pay. When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
Up to 5 days in a row can be self certified, more than that and an employer may require medical sign off. We require it after 10 working days in a row but by law it's a minimum of 5 days in a row self certified.
Currently suspended until 26 January for SSP and benefits, you can self-certify. Employers may still request one of course (but they can legally pay SSP without one).
The huge drive through testing facility in Newcastle was empty this morning when I went for my PCR test. Weird.
Most people can’t be arsed to follow up a positive lateral flow test with a pcr anymore. If they’re not very ill all they’re doing is waiting for their negative LTFs to crack on again.
Yes, this is what I had assumed and indeed has been my position from the start. However, it seems that some employers are insisting on PCR tests (so I hear - is this true?) and another factor has recently come to my attention: to "count" as having recovered from Covid (this is very relevant for families travelling abroad) the evidence has to be from a positive PCR test - and, furthermore, I *think* only NHS administered PCRs count.
For sure they will need the proof you get with PCR positive test that you really have it and are entitled to time off work.
They're not supposed to though. As far as I understand it you can self-certify for 7 days without proof.
Never had to worry about it but I thought it used to be any more than 2 days off and you needed doctor's note to be sure you got sick pay. When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
That must be a Scottish thing, I wasn't offered one.
It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I've often thought that it's unfortunate that modern society doesn't offer many options for living not-alone: there's "find a romantic partner and live with them", shared houses for students and recently-students, and not a lot else. When I was in university I liked living in a room in student housing, with communal meals and plenty of opportunity for interaction with other people who were doing broadly the same thing as me. In my rose-tinted view back over the decades it had some aspects of almost a secular monastery.
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
If you live on your own, you have advantages. More likely to be able to set up a dedicated space, no problem with confidentiality, no interruptions. During lockdown, work kept me occupied 8 hours a day so was valuable. Now I struggle with motivation as there are too many other things to do, and think about.
Which is why the comparison is specious. Imagine having a no drinking rule in our current line of work, Charles. Clients would be extremely unimpressed.
I learnt that 20 years ago… went to visit a French client… he asked me to stay for lunch in his private dining room and was deeply upset when I declined wine as it meant he couldn’t open a bottle… never made that mistake again
This sounds like the script for an Alex cartoon...
It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I've often thought that it's unfortunate that modern society doesn't offer many options for living not-alone: there's "find a romantic partner and live with them", shared houses for students and recently-students, and not a lot else. When I was in university I liked living in a room in student housing, with communal meals and plenty of opportunity for interaction with other people who were doing broadly the same thing as me. In my rose-tinted view back over the decades it had some aspects of almost a secular monastery.
Some of the better retirement homes work like that with the privacy of your own room but the pleasure of company and the confidence of a support network when required. Tend to be more than a bit above the LA rate though.
It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I've often thought that it's unfortunate that modern society doesn't offer many options for living not-alone: there's "find a romantic partner and live with them", shared houses for students and recently-students, and not a lot else. When I was in university I liked living in a room in student housing, with communal meals and plenty of opportunity for interaction with other people who were doing broadly the same thing as me. In my rose-tinted view back over the decades it had some aspects of almost a secular monastery.
A couple of things work against that sort of thing. One is that we're all so short of time to make that sort of community work- and I appreciate that goes back to my crusade against commuting.
The other issue is that, for all such places can be made (and seem to be healthy, happy places), they can't help but sound a bit eccentric;
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
It's the fact that the Nation's Permanently Angry FIrst Wife wouldn't countenance any other venue than that owned by a tory donor that's significant. It's not even that significant in the context of this government's broad spectrum and pervasive corruption. I mean, I absolutely fucking despise LT but this isn't going to do her any damage because Johnson has lowered the standards so far.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
Dutch lockdown watch: the case rate has increased again, from 770 per million on the 31st to 796 per million on New Year's Day. This is the fourth day in a row that cases have risen.
796 per million is still vastly better than the UK's 2,541 per million, though OTOH the UK performs 7.5 times more tests per capita than the Netherlands, so the case rate in the latter may be a more substantial underestimate of the true spread of the variant than that in the former.
Dutch PCR surveillance figures suggest that Omicron may only have breached the 10% barrier in terms of the proportion of total Covid cases around about the same time as the hard lockdown commenced on December 19th. Although more recent data imply that it ought now to be the dominant variant, it's therefore a bit early to see any evidence of an Omicron effect on hospitalisations: per capita admissions in the Netherlands are still relatively low and declining marginally at the moment.
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
‘Blighting’.
At least it’s never hard to see from which hysteria-steeped position Lilico is coming.
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
When I worked for a public sector agency we were invited out for a meal with the external specialist contractors on getting the top board goahead for a major project on which we had been working together for 1-2 years.
It was a pleasant enough pizza place but hardly luxury. But my boss insisted that he and my colleagues and me all paid their own share. Everything not only had to be above board but had to be seen as being above board. (In this case further work would accrue to the outside team, but the commitment had already been made.)
There’s an economics driver behind that of course, but I’d go further and say society has encouraged the extension of adolescence deep into adulthood. I know plenty of 30-somethings and a few 40-somethings who still live like adolescents.
How do you distinguish "live like adolescents" from "live in a different way from what I think is normal from my generation"?
There was a R4 programme on spinsterhood yesterday, specifically about prejudice towards women who live alone. Most of the contributions varied between "Yes it's awful and attitudes are terrible" to "Yes it's awful but atittudes aren't that bad". Anecdotally, I know quite a lot of people living alone (as I do at present), and we all see upsides and downsides. But it's not self-evident that the only way to be happy is to permanently live together with one other person - you can be single and still have a lively sex life, lots of friends, etc., which I guess is what you're referring to. That will as a trend affect the birth rate, but very few of us decide whether to have children on the basis of our potential contribution to GDP.
Over Christmas I learned of my cousin who lived alone (divorced). He fell downstairs and knocked himself unconscious. His breathing was restricted and because he was alone he died. He was ages with me, about 60.The PM was pretty inconclusive, he may have had a blood clot or something that caused him to fall but it is not clear. It brought home to me, again, that living alone is very bad for us. We need social interaction, company and support when things go awry.
I'm sorry to hear that David. Agree that living alone is awful. When my wife goes back to Switzerland to visit her mum and friends I always get bored after about 4 days. Sure I see my friends and family, hang out with the lads etc... but there's definitely something different about living with someone else that I could no longer live without.
It makes one wonder whether big supporters of "working from home" are disproportionately people who live with other people, and aren't considering whether those who live by themselves might have a less positive view of it.
That's exactly what I thought. Isolation is so much easier in the modern world where pretty much anything can be ordered to your door, even if it is not desirable.
Politically there's an interesting digression here. We are a long way from global population falling (50 years?) and an unimaginably long way from everyone who'd like to live in a prosperous Western country being allowed to do so (200+ years?). If it becomes clear that we have a growing shortage of people of working age, do we relax immigration rules to allow, say, 500,000 people a year to arrive and accept the changes in society (such as accelerating urbanisation) that may follow? Or do we increase pension age more rapidly (I'm pushing 72 and working as hard as ever)? Or do we mechanise faster - driverless trains and buses, diagnosis and teaching by AI...? Or do we accept a decline in provision of facilities because of permanent staff shortage?
HYUFD is interesting, since as a Conservative opposed to unrestricted immigration (virtually nobody really favours that), he's not against immigration to fill skill gaps. Creaming off the skills of developing countries is a strategy of doubtful ethical basis (it looks very dodgy but you can make a case that the wages sent home do result in the original home country developing much faster), but it's a possibility. Syria is an example where there are lots of well-educated people in refugee camps or working in menial jobs - should we have a big Syrian resettlement programme?
I'm only being mildly provocative, since I'm not pushing any one solution, but there's definitely an issue?
It's rare I find myself in agreement with @HYUFD but his position on immigration isn't wholly unreasonable. I'd add the caveat we should set ourselves up as educators - providing the skills which those who benefit from the education we offer can take back to their own countries and work toward the prosperity of their own people.
Obviously, every developed country will be competing for skills from developing countries and that already happens. If your Syrian refugee has the right skills, they can apply to go to Australia, New Zealand and Canada as much as the UK. What we should be offering through our education system is the opportunity for skill development and enhancement.
The other side of it, as you say, is how do we get done the jobs no one wants to do? Will there one day be a robot with functioning AI who can keep the streets of East Ham clean and clear 24/7? Perhaps but until that day it needs a person with a cart and a collection of brooms (it seems).
I'd be more excited if we could come up with a solution to the scourge of fly-tipping.
Some very thoughtful posts by @NickPalmer@stodge, and @MrEd whom I rarely agree with but made a very astute post.
I find I hold contradictory views and could have a very successful argument with myself on these issues. @BartholomewRoberts has in the past brought up the issue of the contradiction of people who want freedom of movement but are also nimbies in not wanting more houses and infrastructure built over the greenbelt. That's me and I don't have an answer. Immigration controls are essential until we get to the Utopia of all countries having comparable levels of standards of living unfortunately. It is for this reason I believe in foreign aid. Not only is it morally right, but I believe it benefits us all in the long run.
Re the thread header which is related I want populations to drop (I look forward to the next article @tlg86). True this causes other huge problems but I would prefer tackling them than overpopulation and this isn't a solution anyway in the short term as Nick says.
I thought all the posts we very positive in their suggestions and observations, but none came up with substantial actual solution and I am afraid I am in exactly the same position.
I liked the EU freedom of movement and in particular I liked the admission of Eastern European countries. It brought their standards up, gave us labour, which I assume would then balance out over a few years once equality was reached in terms of standards of living. Maybe we should have had some controls in the first year or so (I believe we opted out of that) but otherwise I approve. However that clearly can't work with say Africa where the difference in standard of living is so great any movement of labour would be devastating.
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
It's the fact that the Nation's Permanently Angry FIrst Wife wouldn't countenance any other venue than that owned by a tory donor that's significant. It's not even that significant in the context of this government's broad spectrum and pervasive corruption. I mean, I absolutely fucking despise LT but this isn't going to do her any damage because Johnson has lowered the standards so far.
Still not remotely interested I'm afraid. The dozens of examples of Tory mates getting multi million pound contracts that they did not deserve, often could not fulfil and without any proper process are absolutely scandals and show the cabinet should resign en masse in shame, but 10 covers at a restaurant? Nah.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
As with advertising, I tend to the opinion that people do this because it works. Many employers set fairly tight monetary limits on this kind of thing in a hospitality-and-gifts policy to ensure that everything stays on the "doesn't affect my decision-making" side of the line and well away from the "is this a bribe or inducement?" area.
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
It's the fact that the Nation's Permanently Angry FIrst Wife wouldn't countenance any other venue than that owned by a tory donor that's significant. It's not even that significant in the context of this government's broad spectrum and pervasive corruption. I mean, I absolutely fucking despise LT but this isn't going to do her any damage because Johnson has lowered the standards so far.
Still not remotely interested I'm afraid. The dozens of examples of Tory mates getting multi million pound contracts that they did not deserve, often could not fulfil and without any proper process are absolutely scandals and show the cabinet should resign en masse in shame, but 10 covers at a restaurant? Nah.
as long as they just steal the petty cash it is fine
BIG G is right yet again, HYUFD is getting all in a mess in the threads just caught up on
HYUFD seems to have forgotten what leave campaign openly and honestly promised all the leave voters at the time in 2016 - end to local EU immigration, so there can be much more immigration from further afield.
Patel led on delivering Indian voters for Brexit with promise of immigration from India.
If you think white working class Leave voters voted to replace free movement from Eastern Europe with free movement from India you are being astonishingly naive.
In any case the points system we now have can bring in any curry specialists we need from India
You are wrong HY. Well you are sort of right because you are clearly trying to twist it a bit into another question.
Look at the links. What was great about Priti Patel in the leave campaign she was so open and honest about saying to the Indian subcontinent community precisely that - being in EU blocks immigration from India sub continent. Patel promised them more immigration, got them on side, got Brexit over the line.
These are facts HY.
Some may say “there’s too much of you lot” but Patel was promising complete opposite openly and honestly in the campaign. Look at it, it’s fact.
I’ll add, do all curry specialists have to come only from India from now? I’m pretty sure it’s not currently the case.
Quite happy to join most pile ons highlighting this governments repeated and offensive sleaze but £140 a head meals with a cabinet minister and senior foreign officials is completely fine. At double that I might think it poor judgment but still not worthy of news. It would probably have to be 4-5x more expensive to be newsworthy imo.
It's the fact that the Nation's Permanently Angry FIrst Wife wouldn't countenance any other venue than that owned by a tory donor that's significant. It's not even that significant in the context of this government's broad spectrum and pervasive corruption. I mean, I absolutely fucking despise LT but this isn't going to do her any damage because Johnson has lowered the standards so far.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
You lie with dogs..... you always expect these crooks to be on the make or enriching their chums, it is second nature to them.
Nah. I suspect she thought it was a nice place to go. May be she knew it was owned by Birley. Unlikely she knew he was a donor to Boris. Very unlikely that influenced her decision.
A nice place to go? She should have taken him to Nandos like the rest of us.
Main take out, Rishi has a FANTASTIC spin team, they are holding so much dirt on everyone and know how to drip it 🙂
My dad worked in sales for IBM for some years. American visitors were shocked that alcohol was served at company dinners in Britain and Europe.
I am not convinced that getting 3 sheets to the wind is helpful at business meetings, as a fifth of a bottle of gin and half bottle of wine per person would imply.
I very much doubt that was connected to the donation. It’s a pretty tenuous link.
It may not be an actual problem, but someone has leaked this information... and if the intention wasn't to damage la Truss, it's hard to see what it was.
And that is a potential problem for her.
Is it a leak? I can't read the full story behind the paywall but is it old enough to come from an FOI request?
It's recent (June). Apparently the information was "published as part of transparency rules". Details of the lunch for 10 include "two bottles of Tanqueray, the London dry gin, three £153 bottles of Pazo Barrantes Albarino by Marqués de Murrieta and two bottles of Coudoulet de Beaucastel at £130 a bottle". The defence is that it was a meeting with important US trade officials, US trade is very important, and Liz Truss knew the place well and therefore wanted to go there. The owner is a prominent donor to the Tories and UKIP and has hosted specific political events for Truss before.
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
2 bottles of gin between 10?! May be a gift? Or a minimum spend issue?
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
Andrew Lilico @andrew_lilico · 11h But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
‘Blighting’.
At least it’s never hard to see from which hysteria-steeped position Lilico is coming.
the essence of power is to be enabled to force stupid things on the public
They took a US Trade Delegation out for dinner. And you think they should have Ubered out for Greggs.
Yes, but that was the question I asked earlier, and it applied equally when I was in reasonably senior management in private sector pharma. Would the Trade Delegation (or the private clients) make different decisions if they were served a Greggs meal? If so, then shouldn't their employers be asking questions about the self-interested decisions that their delegates are making?
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
In Britain, a country that has an ugly and dysfunctional relationship with alcohol, it does matter.
Comments
IIRC I've been to a reception at a different club that he owns myself, as part of a delegation sent by my previous employer, as he's also active in supporting animal welfare, and very nice it was. As with business expenditure, though, it's an open question whether the outcomes of this sort of expenditure are materially different from if they all took visiting delegations to Wetherspoons. Clearly everyone involved has no interest in asking the question, nor do their bosses who are doing the same thing.
Again, impossible to generalise - there's no question many have suffered. There's also no question some have thrived.
Everyone has their experiences and these tend to be re-enforced because, as has oft been said "people like people like themselves".
Policy changed after a non-binding vote won by 78k to 50k (ish), in a organisation of 6 million members.
That is, a proposal for which 1/76 of the membership felt strongly enough to return their post-paid envelopes to support.
There speaks the 0.1%
2 bottles of gin between 10 mind. I have a bottle of gin here which says it's 30 units, so av 6 units each before half a bottle of wine.
£140 a head for a dinner isn’t outrageous (our corporate cap is £150 including wine)
The key is what will he offer to the British people in 2024? It's interesting to hear Rachel Reeves offer a very different economic policy to John McConnell and it doesn't sound as though there will be anything to scare "middle Britain" on that side.
Starmer comes across to this observer as dull but competent. I'd feel perfectly happy with him as PM which certainly wasn't the case with his predecessor.
You don't have to produce a radical manifesto to win - Thatcher's 1979 offering was much less radical than Heath's in 1970 and Blair's 1997 offering was dull compared to the 1945 Attlee proposals. Indeed, I'd argue short of a clear existential crisis, "more of the same but done better" goes a long way.
0.000036%
What would you have young women do?
The only time there was any bother was when I was the most senior sober manager and stepped in to settle the bill. That the alcohol bill was higher than the food bill created some questions ("how many bottles of wine???") answered by pointing out I wasn't the organising manager and don't drink wine...
Obviously, every developed country will be competing for skills from developing countries and that already happens. If your Syrian refugee has the right skills, they can apply to go to Australia, New Zealand and Canada as much as the UK. What we should be offering through our education system is the opportunity for skill development and enhancement.
The other side of it, as you say, is how do we get done the jobs no one wants to do? Will there one day be a robot with functioning AI who can keep the streets of East Ham clean and clear 24/7? Perhaps but until that day it needs a person with a cart and a collection of brooms (it seems).
I'd be more excited if we could come up with a solution to the scourge of fly-tipping.
The historical example of that is the importation of tens of thousands of workers from the Indian sub-continent to the Northern mill towns in the 1960s as factories looked for cheap labour. Ten years later, the factories were closed but the towns were permanently changed in their composition. The bosses who took the decision, of course, didn’t have to deal with the consequences.
Different people will have different views on what they think about this - and, if you wanted to be cynical, you’d argue Labour would of course promote a policy that supports widespread immigration as it would probably help their long term vote - but we have to be careful about the unintended consequences of what seem like easy fixes.
Pick your battles luv
When you get PCR result they ask if you want certificate for employer to confirm they have to give you the time off.
Only good thing these absolute parasites are good at is swilling the public's money down their greedy gullet's.
£12-5 for a starter, £25-30 for a main course, £12-5 for dessert and you have £50-60 a head on food. Plus 5 bottles of wine at £80-100 a bottle and you can easily spend £1,000+ for 10 people. Add the gin and you get to £1,400.
Of course central London prices are ludicrous but that’s a different issue
Officials warned venue too expensive and political for meal with diplomat.
Even renegotiated price was hundreds of pounds more than proposed alternative, Quo Vadis
But she deemed latter "inappropriate" https://twitter.com/Gabriel_Pogrund/status/1477562050868035585/photo/1
The reason was simply that an incident could easily kill people, and they'd had incidents in past decades caused by people being drunk. So there was a strict no-alcohol policy, enacted from the very top of the organisation.
If you had a drink when entertaining, you did not go back on site. They actually had a manor house in a nearby village for the corporate stuff - not that I ever saw it.
It's worse for people who have to be on call - e.g. doctors, or any other weird occupations. When you're on call, you cannot have any alcohol: because you may need to drive into work, and need a clear head.
Maybe people just aren't that important to me, other than for their entertainment value.
That's the context of it.
Now Starmer does come across as dull.
But I don't see much evidence of competence.
Rather Starmer is someone who typifies 'the gentleman in Whitehall knows best' mentality with its resulting tendencies to authoritarianism and micro-management.
I think that flat, or city centre flats - appropriately sized - are fine for bringing up children if that is your chosen lifestyle. There are plenty of places where that has been the pattern for generations if not centuries; a problem comes when a family is in a studio or a one bed, for example. Or if the local housing market is not working properly.
Not sure that eg London is poor in that respect; it is one of the best European cities for green space. You are a little challenged for that, but have all the attractions of London.
At root the housing mix is controlled by the local authority. In estates being built round here at present it is heavily 2 and 3 bed, with perhaps 10% 4 bed. Our local challenge afaics is developers going for more density by reducing garages.
Btw, the letter in the Telegraph by the Tory MPs / Peers is interesting. Given the voting on the Red Wall seats, any future leadership contest is going to have a representative of the Blue Collar Conservative wing in the mix and they have sufficient numbers to push a candidate into at least the later rounds of a contest, especially if Red Wall MPs feel such a candidate will help them keep their seats. Also remember Steve Baker - who is clearly involved - is also a very good organiser when it comes to marshalling support.
(He’s just retired and handed me over to his successor)
And is anyone really impressed by someone offering wine that expensive ?
It looks needy, wasteful and pretentious to me.
The UK is now a supplicant. On its knees begging potential trade partners like the US for even the hint of a deal. That means doing the nice things like this kind of lunch. The optics don't look good when you say "what about UC" but they will *never* look good regardless of the party in government.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/jan/02/rightwing-attacks-rescues-uk-lifeboat-charity-fundraising-rnli-royal-national-lifeboat-institution
The other issue is that, for all such places can be made (and seem to be healthy, happy places), they can't help but sound a bit eccentric;
https://marmaladelane.co.uk/
Of course nearly everyone likes a slap-up meal, and it's convenient to think that you're doing your employers a favour by taking them to one (and thereby incidentally having one yourself). But does it actually change the outcome? People in the business say "Yes, otherwise we wouldn't do it", but there isn't a control group to see if that's actually the case. When I was in the business of deciding on very large software contracts for the company, I expect I'd have accepted an invitation to a luxury dinner by the vendors, but I'd still have made the decision on the merits of the software even if they'd just invited me to a cup of tea - I'd have seen anything else as an essentially corrupt breach of my employment contract.
Andrew Lilico
@andrew_lilico
·
11h
But why? Why restrict the kids after we've already infected so many old folk at Christmas? The hospitalisations peak is already baked in now. Blighting kids' schooling isn't going to help with that any more. So what's the point other than a cosmetic "See! We're doing something!"?
796 per million is still vastly better than the UK's 2,541 per million, though OTOH the UK performs 7.5 times more tests per capita than the Netherlands, so the case rate in the latter may be a more substantial underestimate of the true spread of the variant than that in the former.
Dutch PCR surveillance figures suggest that Omicron may only have breached the 10% barrier in terms of the proportion of total Covid cases around about the same time as the hard lockdown commenced on December 19th. Although more recent data imply that it ought now to be the dominant variant, it's therefore a bit early to see any evidence of an Omicron effect on hospitalisations: per capita admissions in the Netherlands are still relatively low and declining marginally at the moment.
At least it’s never hard to see from which hysteria-steeped position Lilico is coming.
It was a pleasant enough pizza place but hardly luxury. But my boss insisted that he and my colleagues and me all paid their own share. Everything not only had to be above board but had to be seen as being above board. (In this case further work would accrue to the outside team, but the commitment had already been made.)
"Wicked! I is here in da North Ilford Ghetto, hangin' with me bitches!"
I find I hold contradictory views and could have a very successful argument with myself on these issues. @BartholomewRoberts has in the past brought up the issue of the contradiction of people who want freedom of movement but are also nimbies in not wanting more houses and infrastructure built over the greenbelt. That's me and I don't have an answer. Immigration controls are essential until we get to the Utopia of all countries having comparable levels of standards of living unfortunately. It is for this reason I believe in foreign aid. Not only is it morally right, but I believe it benefits us all in the long run.
Re the thread header which is related I want populations to drop (I look forward to the next article @tlg86). True this causes other huge problems but I would prefer tackling them than overpopulation and this isn't a solution anyway in the short term as Nick says.
I thought all the posts we very positive in their suggestions and observations, but none came up with substantial actual solution and I am afraid I am in exactly the same position.
I liked the EU freedom of movement and in particular I liked the admission of Eastern European countries. It brought their standards up, gave us labour, which I assume would then balance out over a few years once equality was reached in terms of standards of living. Maybe we should have had some controls in the first year or so (I believe we opted out of that) but otherwise I approve. However that clearly can't work with say Africa where the difference in standard of living is so great any movement of labour would be devastating.
Only kidding! Congrats!
I am not convinced that getting 3 sheets to the wind is helpful at business meetings, as a fifth of a bottle of gin and half bottle of wine per person would imply.