Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

LAB hot favourites in local election betting – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 12,161
edited March 2022 in General
imageLAB hot favourites in local election betting – politicalbetting.com

Creating a betting market for the local elections is very challenging because a different group of seats comes up each year for election. Smarkets have got around this by providing an exchange bet on the projected national vote share that the BBC generally issues in its local election results coverage.

Read the full story here

«1345

Comments

  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,991
    edited March 2022
    I can't believe Downdon even volunteered the story of Boris.wanting to go to Ukraine.

    When i saw the headline, I presumed it was either out of context, as in he means after the war ends or it was a some unnamed source overhead anothr person on the phone claiming....sort of bollocks.
  • I can't believe Downdon even volunteered the story of Boris.wanting to go to Ukraine.

    When i saw the headline, I presumed it was either out of context, as in he means after the war ends or it was a some unnamed source overhead anothr person on the phone claiming....sort of bollocks.

    Or perhaps it is trying to stop Boris from going?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Good old projected national vote share.

    I like the locals because of how blatant parties manage expectations and spin, knowing that most people won't pick up on the point in the header about the challenge of different groups of seats (in that case for betting, for the public in perceptions).
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Andy_JS said:

    HYUFD said:

    Andy_JS said:

    On topic from the previous thread:

    Why doesn't the Labour Party re-name itself "The Graduates' Party"?

    The Graduates and public sector workers and welfare claimants party.

    Mind you the Tories could also rename themselves the pensioners party at the moment
    As someone who has spent countless hours campaigning for them - there is absolutely no reason to vote Conservative if you are under 50 except as a form of social charity for pensioners. The Conservatives spend most of their time completely fucking over my generation. Thinking about it, I really should have voted for Corbyn, because at least the subsequent economic collapse would have devalued the housing market.
    Rishi Sunak is well under 50. (So is Priti for another 8 days).
    So is Raab, Barclary (just), Kwarteng, Braverman, Trevelyan and Dowden, with several others round about 50. It's not a very old Cabinet, especially for a party in power for 12 years.

    Not really an indication of their policy offer one way or another.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    FPT
    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

  • FF43FF43 Posts: 17,208
    Andy_JS said:

    "Boris Johnson "desperate" to go to Ukraine - senior Conservative

    The Tory chairman, Oliver Dowden, has claimed British prime minister Boris Johnson is “desperate to go to Ukraine” and has a “real emotional connection” with the Ukrainian people."

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2022/mar/21/russia-ukraine-war-latest-news-kyiv-rejects-moscows-deadline-for-mariupol-surrender-biden-to-visit-poland-live

    Boris being Boris, I suppose. There is no situation so tragic that the man will not make it about him and his self-promotion.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    I can't believe Downdon even volunteered the story of Boris.wanting to go to Ukraine.

    When i saw the headline, I presumed it was either out of context, as in he means after the war ends or it was a some unnamed source overhead anothr person on the phone claiming....sort of bollocks.

    Or perhaps it is trying to stop Boris from going?
    It's a dumb idea which won't happen, but probably not much downside for him in suggesting he'd like to go. Some at least will love it, some will think him stupid, some shameless, some will think him stupid but heart in the right place, and regardless the story is out there about how much he wanted to be with them in their hour of need.

    So a run as Zelensky's running mate won't be out of the question I suppose.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    I've seen this story about Poland sending in peacekeeping forces. Does anyone know anything more about it?

    Presumably, without Russian agreement it simply means joining the war on Ukraine's side. Is that what is intended, or is it something less than that - perhaps Polish forces in West Ukraine to deter a Belarusian invasion, freeing up some Ukrainian army units in the West to head to the frontlines in the East?
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,625
    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    Presumably some women are fighting, but I guess the Ukrainian armed forces have been remiss filling out their equalities spreadsheets to give us precise numbers. No doubt there is someone out there in a dark corner of the internet stating that the real crime here is the perpetuation of patriarchial hierarchical norms, and another glorifying this return to Conan style masculine ideals.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,991
    edited March 2022

    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442

    I have the scene from Lock Stock and Two Shooting Barrels where they go to raid the weed dealers and they are locked in the entrance hall and keep getting shot...and the lead guy is "Could everyone stop gettin' shot"...its seems to be the case with higher up within the Russian military.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    darkage said:

    I can't believe Downdon even volunteered the story of Boris.wanting to go to Ukraine.

    When i saw the headline, I presumed it was either out of context, as in he means after the war ends or it was a some unnamed source overhead anothr person on the phone claiming....sort of bollocks.

    Boris wants to be greeted as a hero. He can't resist it.
    But Boris isn't the hero, it is Zelensky and his team.
    All Boris would be doing is trying to steal some of their glow.
    Being serious, Boris is already diplomatically doing all he can - he's talking to Zelensky, he's championing that cause, and providing much support, and has clearly developed a good relationship with his Ukrainian counterpart. Unlike the leaders of near neighbours him going would only serve as a distraction and unnecessary risk.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 48,633
    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    I think 10% of Ukranian armed Forces are women, and are employed in all roles. 90% male still, but probably more females than most armies.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.
    Well, I've been struck by the number of women taking up arms. There have been a few stories of couples getting married as a prelude to both joining the armed forces.

    But I suppose if you have a family and you have to choose one parent to protect the children and the other to go to war, most of the time the normal gender division will come into operation.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    I've seen this story about Poland sending in peacekeeping forces. Does anyone know anything more about it?

    Presumably, without Russian agreement it simply means joining the war on Ukraine's side. Is that what is intended, or is it something less than that - perhaps Polish forces in West Ukraine to deter a Belarusian invasion, freeing up some Ukrainian army units in the West to head to the frontlines in the East?

    I haven't seen that, and it may be made up. but it could be 'kite flying' see how US?NATO react, like the idea of giving MIG 29s which US has now quashed. I think Poland is doing everything and anything it can, but has by now probably given almost all its spare weapons and ammunition.

    I cant see it happening, but there might be some value in going in to western Ukraine to deter invasion from the sea or Belorussia, as you say freeing up the last bit of the Ukrainian army not engaged to counterattack somewhere else, but what do we do when some Polish solders are killed by Russian missile/air attack?
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,310
    kle4 said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    Presumably some women are fighting, but I guess the Ukrainian armed forces have been remiss filling out their equalities spreadsheets to give us precise numbers. No doubt there is someone out there in a dark corner of the internet stating that the real crime here is the perpetuation of patriarchial hierarchical norms, and another glorifying this return to Conan style masculine ideals.
    According to some of the reports from Mariopol, the Russians are raping the women there and those they have taken to be moved to Russia. Ukrainian women - like everyone else - are suffering terribly.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Foxy said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    I think 10% of Ukranian armed Forces are women, and are employed in all roles. 90% male still, but probably more females than most armies.
    No doubt, though wasn't there a story about Ukraine barring men of fighting age from leaving the country? Not seen much follow up if that was an actual thing, as there seem to be plenty of male refugees.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    I've had a strange election communication from the labour party in relation to this coming council election.
    It used to be a safe labour seat where they did nothing.
    Last year they lost one of the seats to a conservative candidate who was little more than a paper candidate.
    The other labour councillor is now defending the seat.
    The labour leaflets go through the usual local generic issues - potholes, etc.
    And then goes on to ask people to write to conservative councillors about them.
    Email addresses etc were provided - for conservative politicians.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 51,625

    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442

    I have the scene from Lock Stock and Two Shooting Barrels where they go to raid the weed dealers and they are locked in the entrance hall and keep getting shot...and the lead guy is "Could everyone stop gettin' shot"...its seems to be the case with higher up within the Russian military.
    Someone joked that Russia is adopting an attrition strategy. They will keep sending generals until the Ukrainians run out of bullets.
  • BigRichBigRich Posts: 3,492

    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442

    I thought that the commander of a Brigade would normally be a Brigadier or higher. maybe I'm wrong,
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    BigRich said:

    I've seen this story about Poland sending in peacekeeping forces. Does anyone know anything more about it?

    Presumably, without Russian agreement it simply means joining the war on Ukraine's side. Is that what is intended, or is it something less than that - perhaps Polish forces in West Ukraine to deter a Belarusian invasion, freeing up some Ukrainian army units in the West to head to the frontlines in the East?

    I haven't seen that, and it may be made up. but it could be 'kite flying' see how US?NATO react, like the idea of giving MIG 29s which US has now quashed. I think Poland is doing everything and anything it can, but has by now probably given almost all its spare weapons and ammunition.

    I cant see it happening, but there might be some value in going in to western Ukraine to deter invasion from the sea or Belorussia, as you say freeing up the last bit of the Ukrainian army not engaged to counterattack somewhere else, but what do we do when some Polish solders are killed by Russian missile/air attack?
    It's something the Visegrad Twitter keeps posting about, like here: https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1505992450418040844

    The war currently looks pretty like it's in a stalemate, so a bit of extra help of one sort or another might be enough to give the Ukrainians the upper hand.
  • Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Depends. Are you, or are you planning to be, an investment banker?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 55,277

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Brexit
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    edited March 2022

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    In 1987 the Tories somehow managed to win under 30s. They didn't in either 1983 or 1992. In 1987 the Tories were fashionable in London, winning Battersea and Walthamstow from Labour.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    biggles said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Depends. Are you, or are you planning to be, an investment banker?
    Joking aside, they would of course say that they are putting in place an economy in which anyone and everyone can succeed, should they have the talent to do so.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    edited March 2022

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    Leon said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Brexit
    It's the way you tell 'em.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    Andy_JS said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    In 1987 the Tories somehow managed to win under 30s. They didn't in either 1983 or 1992. In 1987 the Tories were fashionable in London.
    Liberals and SDLP?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    Leon said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Brexit
    Everywhere seems to be hiring right now. Plenty of jobs around.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.
  • darkagedarkage Posts: 5,398
    Cyclefree said:

    kle4 said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    Presumably some women are fighting, but I guess the Ukrainian armed forces have been remiss filling out their equalities spreadsheets to give us precise numbers. No doubt there is someone out there in a dark corner of the internet stating that the real crime here is the perpetuation of patriarchial hierarchical norms, and another glorifying this return to Conan style masculine ideals.
    According to some of the reports from Mariopol, the Russians are raping the women there and those they have taken to be moved to Russia. Ukrainian women - like everyone else - are suffering terribly.
    I've been wondering how the war in Ukraine and its attendant horrors, all filmed and verified, can ever leave the top of the news agenda. Lots of domestic stories have struggled to get airtime. The stripsearch of the 15 year old was bad, and the protests were justified; but hardly as evil as bombing a maternity hospital, and mass rape.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Have Labour and the LDs called for the defunding of the NHS? B****rds!
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 21,298

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    They haven’t yet reinstated the Corn Laws, tho I expect it will be in the manifesto for 24.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    edited March 2022
    darkage said:

    I've had a strange election communication from the labour party in relation to this coming council election.
    It used to be a safe labour seat where they did nothing.
    Last year they lost one of the seats to a conservative candidate who was little more than a paper candidate.
    The other labour councillor is now defending the seat.
    The labour leaflets go through the usual local generic issues - potholes, etc.
    And then goes on to ask people to write to conservative councillors about them.
    Email addresses etc were provided - for conservative politicians.

    Trying to embarrass them?
  • FairlieredFairliered Posts: 4,931
    Leon said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Brexit
    😂🙄
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    kle4 said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    Presumably some women are fighting, but I guess the Ukrainian armed forces have been remiss filling out their equalities spreadsheets to give us precise numbers. No doubt there is someone out there in a dark corner of the internet stating that the real crime here is the perpetuation of patriarchial hierarchical norms, and another glorifying this return to Conan style masculine ideals.
    Do many armies have large proportions of female frontline soldiers? In this country, it’s only recently that we have had women on the frontline and even now I suspect they are a tiny proportion of our force.
  • StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 17,215
    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    That'll be the high personal allowances that are due to be frozen for the next few years so that they're eroded by inflation.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Have Labour and the LDs called for the defunding of the NHS? B****rds!
    No but he asked for a policy, and the national insurance increase is such a policy. It may not be the best approach, and there is certainly a case for also targeting unearned income, but it is trying to fund the nhs.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
  • kjhkjh Posts: 11,786
    edited March 2022
    Leon said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Brexit
    Is there any subject that you won't respond to with Brexit?

    And if you think people under 30 think Brexit helps them you are deluded. Most are pissed off with the lost opportunities in Europe.

    I appreciate your reply was probably tongue in cheek.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 22,818
    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Kinda true but really a Labour policy and a Libdem policy that the Tories have ended up implementing by default.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 32,553
    edited March 2022
    This sounds interesting

    "Wheat has corrupted humanity
    The grain gave birth to the tyrannical state
    BY JOHN LEWIS-STEMPEL"

    https://unherd.com/2022/03/wheat-has-corrupted-humanity/
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    edited March 2022
    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
  • bigglesbiggles Posts: 6,051
    Farooq said:

    Hypothetical scenario. If a British PM (let's call him Forres Ronson) went to a war zone (for sake of imagination, let's call the country Mamalukraine), and got captured, humiliated in public for the rest of his natural life by being used as a human loupin'-on stane for the enemy leader... at what point would Betfair pay out on the PM to leave office market?

    Something about kissing rings?
  • MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 28,368
    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Modern Apprenticeships? Many are an absolute joke. I only know this because I have delivered them.

    Proper time served, day and block release to University apprenticeships (which often results in degrees and HNDs) on the other hand can be excellent.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    I don't understand what being single has to do with a high personal tax allowance. Can you elaborate?
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    But that wasn't in response to a single company making dogmeat (I hope). The issue here is that the company is owned and run by scumbags and the people of the UK need to vote with their feet. Changing our business environment seems like a bit much for one company, the government could make tangible moves to simply exclude DP World from public contracting, that would require no changes in the law.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,355

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    Well, yes, but that reflects long-held cultural biases. It's not likely to change overnight, which is the aspect that would be problematic.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153

    Another towering achievement from Vlad, the master geopolitical strategist:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    1h
    Germany is ready to form the backbone of a new EU Rapid Reaction Force that is to consist of 5000 soldiers by 2025.

    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht delivered the message today in Brussels during a meeting with her counterparts from other EU states.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1506007795669233666

    So, not that rapid then?
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802
    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
    Nah, HTB is a shit policy. The Nationwide helping hand mortgage for FTB is much more helpful from what I can tell. Osborne was pursuing a tough on landlords policy which Rishi and Hammond simply gave up on, that would help under 30s get on the housing ladder more than anything else. The Cameron/Osborne government seemed to understand that creating homeowners was a way of creating Tory voters and the easiest way to free up housing stock for owner occupation was to turn landlords into forced sellers.
  • kle4 said:

    darkage said:

    FPT

    glw said:

    Nigelb said:

    Last days of the Third Reich stuff if true…

    https://twitter.com/EuromaidanPress/status/1505955060408324103
    Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu are preparing to involve "Youth Army" minors aged 17-18 years in the Russia-Ukraine war, Defense Intelligence of Ukraine reports

    Desperate.
    The Ukrainian border agency said today that 400,000 Ukrainians had returned to the country since the start of the war, about 75-80% men, presumably mostly to help defend the country from the Russians.

    The gap in willingness to fight is very large.
    I'd be surprised if there are many in the Russian military who actually want to be fighting this war, but amongst the Ukrainian population they may not want to fight, but they sure as hell will do so to protect their people and country. This is not some far away war about an issue that ought to be resolvable diplomatically, this very existence of Ukraine rests on the outcome. Other than your own immediate safety there really isn't much greater motivation.
    For most people, it would be a case of wanting to do what you can. You would try and help. If you regard the place as home, and are not implacably opposed to the government, you would go back to defend it - you wouldn't want to be a refugee somewhere else. This is how I would feel about Britain, if it were under attack in some way. I can't imagine being able to live with myself knowing that other people are doing the fighting on my behalf.

    Interesting the gender dimension to all of this. Suddenly it is just accepted that 'men go to fight in the war'. I've never seen this idea questioned in the discussion about Ukraine. I've been suggesting to my wife that I think that gender norms are so deeply entrenched in human psychology that they can never be truly deconstructed.

    Presumably some women are fighting, but I guess the Ukrainian armed forces have been remiss filling out their equalities spreadsheets to give us precise numbers. No doubt there is someone out there in a dark corner of the internet stating that the real crime here is the perpetuation of patriarchial hierarchical norms, and another glorifying this return to Conan style masculine ideals.
    Do many armies have large proportions of female frontline soldiers? In this country, it’s only recently that we have had women on the frontline and even now I suspect they are a tiny proportion of our force.
    Israel?
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    rcs1000 said:

    Another towering achievement from Vlad, the master geopolitical strategist:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    1h
    Germany is ready to form the backbone of a new EU Rapid Reaction Force that is to consist of 5000 soldiers by 2025.

    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht delivered the message today in Brussels during a meeting with her counterparts from other EU states.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1506007795669233666

    So, not that rapid then?
    Or much of a force, either. Russia deployed 200k in Ukraine and they are losing.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    Andy_JS said:

    This sounds interesting

    "Wheat has corrupted humanity
    The grain gave birth to the tyrannical state
    BY JOHN LEWIS-STEMPEL"

    https://unherd.com/2022/03/wheat-has-corrupted-humanity/

    The point around the human switch to farming, particular crop farming, and rise of states and how for many it may have been a worse life than being a hunter gatherer is one I've seen in discussed in a number of different ways. At their worst they can read like utopian screeds about the evils of civilization itself, and outdated views on the serenity of pre-agricultural societies. But that piece is actually more interesting than its provocative title on ecological effects etc.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    rcs1000 said:

    Another towering achievement from Vlad, the master geopolitical strategist:

    Visegrád 24
    @visegrad24
    ·
    1h
    Germany is ready to form the backbone of a new EU Rapid Reaction Force that is to consist of 5000 soldiers by 2025.

    German Defense Minister Christine Lambrecht delivered the message today in Brussels during a meeting with her counterparts from other EU states.

    https://twitter.com/visegrad24/status/1506007795669233666

    So, not that rapid then?
    At least we know when the invasion of Poland will need to be launched by.
  • RobDRobD Posts: 59,926
    .

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    Yes, so you would make the law that way, not focused on a specific company. What you can't do is arbitrarily ban a single company that had otherwise been operating within the rules.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    Well, yes, but that reflects long-held cultural biases. It's not likely to change overnight, which is the aspect that would be problematic.
    From what I can see, we have a “long held cultural bias” against a British company sacking its entire workforce and replacing them with workers on a rate that it is illegal to pay in the UK.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
    As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
    Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    I don't understand what being single has to do with a high personal tax allowance. Can you elaborate?
    I’ve been puzzling over this too!
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011
    Andy_JS said:
    I don't know who will win, but I do know that the majority of PBers don't know how to pronounce Delaval.
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 17,405
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    Andy_JS said:

    This sounds interesting

    "Wheat has corrupted humanity
    The grain gave birth to the tyrannical state
    BY JOHN LEWIS-STEMPEL"

    https://unherd.com/2022/03/wheat-has-corrupted-humanity/

    Well, probably just as well we are not going to have any given the mess being made of the bread basket of Europe.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.

    The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    DavidL said:

    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
    As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
    Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
    Not much of a rallying cry to the under 30s "If you're lucky, you might get some benefits by default of our focus on others".
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    I don't understand what being single has to do with a high personal tax allowance. Can you elaborate?
    I’ve been puzzling over this too!
    RobD said:

    .

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    Yes, so you would make the law that way, not focused on a specific company. What you can't do is arbitrarily ban a single company that had otherwise been operating within the rules.
    Sure, and quite right. Yet such a law would in practice only affect P&O as no other British ferry companies have been sufficiently stupid or callous to try this ruse. The OP (on the previous thread) claimed there was nothing the government could do to capture P&O without blocking most/all shipping - a claim which is palpable garbage.
  • SeaShantyIrish2SeaShantyIrish2 Posts: 17,559
    BigRich said:

    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442

    I thought that the commander of a Brigade would normally be a Brigadier or higher. maybe I'm wrong,
    Possible brevet / temporary rank? Or confusion in translation?
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,859

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    That'll be the high personal allowances that are due to be frozen for the next few years so that they're eroded by inflation.
    The ones the LibDems got increased, back when the Tories said it would be a “crazy” policy - those personal allowances? Or some other, not increased by the LibDems and not being decreased by the Tories personal allowances, that have passed the rest of us by?
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 22,011

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    Speak for yourself!

    Our rabbit is much nicer than any dog I've met.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.

    CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    Don't really see that. If you are single you are going to get the first £10k tax free and pay 20% on the balance so if you earn £20k then your IT rate is 10% which is a quarter of mine.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    I always recall at University we had a seminar discussion which kicked off with the lecturer asking us why we pay taxes. I don't even remember what the broader subject matter was. But I recall it because they seemed put out when I answered 'Because we go to prison if we don't'.

    I think they were looking for a more useful answer about the purpose of taxation, which I'm all for, but I couldn't but help be flippant.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    I don't understand what being single has to do with a high personal tax allowance. Can you elaborate?
    I’ve been puzzling over this too!
    I've just become so accustomed to thinking about equivalised household income (particularly after housing costs). Think my job is rubbing off on me a bit...

    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Equivalised_disposable_income
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.

    CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
    At least one thing they were able to hold firm on, and that was resisting the WASPI crowd. Given everything else I am surprised.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485
    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.

    The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
    Again, though, it would be very easy for the government to distinguish between cargo and ferries (as Ishmael said on the PT). It’s arbitrary but as I have pointed out above there are loads of arbitrary distinctions in English law.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 96,083
    edited March 2022

    BigRich said:

    @EerikNKross
    No longer big news but still. The commander fo the 🇷🇺 346th Spetsnaz Brigade of GRU colonel Sergey Podgursky was killed by 🇺🇦 forces near Mariupol. This highly trained unit was used in Crimea and the invasion of East Ukraine in 2014, being probably created for that purpose.


    https://twitter.com/EerikNKross/status/1506009320999485442

    I thought that the commander of a Brigade would normally be a Brigadier or higher. maybe I'm wrong,
    Possible brevet / temporary rank? Or confusion in translation?
    Maybe they should abandon officer ranks entirely.
  • FrancisUrquhartFrancisUrquhart Posts: 81,991
    edited March 2022

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.

    The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
    Again, though, it would be very easy for the government to distinguish between cargo and ferries (as Ishmael said on the PT). It’s arbitrary but as I have pointed out above there are loads of arbitrary distinctions in English law.
    If it is so absolutely trivial, why is literally not a single person in the political or media advocating for this? And they aren't normally too slow on advocating policies that in theory are possible but in real world terms don't hold up.

    Starmer, who was super quick to (wrongly) claim the UK could just cut Russia off from SWIFT and all other Labour representatives aren't calling for anything like this. Their response is 100% focused upon a law banning fire / rehire (which I doubt applies here because old employees were employed in Jersey, new ones via Malta / Cyprus) and going forward excluding P&O from public sector contracts.

    I haven't heard a single person saying well all we need to do is make a simple change to the law to ensure P&O can't operate in British ports.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    Speak for yourself!

    Our rabbit is much nicer than any dog I've met.
    I cast no personal judgement here. My friend has a pet rabbit and it’s one of the loveliest pets I have ever met!
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 38,802

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.

    The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
    Again, though, it would be very easy for the government to distinguish between cargo and ferries (as Ishmael said on the PT). It’s arbitrary but as I have pointed out above there are loads of arbitrary distinctions in English law.
    But don't they just become a hybrid cargo/passenger service then and make sure that 51% of their business income is derived from cargo? I don't think there are easy answers within legislation. I'm just not sure it's worth it either. The government should have a simple message, the UK will exclude DP World from public contracts and encourage the public to use alternative routes to France and not use any DP World ferries.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.

    CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
    The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.

    Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    Eabhal said:

    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    High personal allowances are brilliant if you live with a partner. With so many young people single, it's not such a great deal.
    I don't understand what being single has to do with a high personal tax allowance. Can you elaborate?
    I’ve been puzzling over this too!
    I've just become so accustomed to thinking about equivalised household income (particularly after housing costs). Think my job is rubbing off on me a bit...

    https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Glossary:Equivalised_disposable_income
    Basically, the net income of a couple is far higher with the same levels of earnings as a single person (obviously, due to tax allowances).

    If you then take into account housing costs and other living costs, you end up with economies of scale of living with other people.

    Quite a big chunk of poverty can be explained by increasing numbers of people living by themselves. International comparisons are fun (particularly Italy, as I recall).
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 57,153
    DavidL said:

    Andy_JS said:

    This sounds interesting

    "Wheat has corrupted humanity
    The grain gave birth to the tyrannical state
    BY JOHN LEWIS-STEMPEL"

    https://unherd.com/2022/03/wheat-has-corrupted-humanity/

    Well, probably just as well we are not going to have any given the mess being made of the bread basket of Europe.
    Ah, so what the article is saying is that it was Ukraine's production of wheat that *made* Russia tyrannical. It is all Ukraine's fault after all.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,485

    MaxPB said:

    RobD said:

    RobD said:

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    I don't think that's an example of arbitrary decisions affecting one company alone.
    No it affects several companies who would otherwise be involved in the sale of dog meat. What’s your point?
    That's it's not an arbitrary decision affecting a single company.
    Any policy that captured P&O would also capture any other cross channel ferry company that attempted to sack its workers and replace them with people earning under the NMW. It really wouldn’t require the wit of man, and it is entirely possible. The idea that it’s impossible for the government to do anything is ludicrous in the extreme.
    I think the point is that doing so will have the side effect of massively pushing up freight costs for UK businesses who are already seeing surging shipping costs. Most cargo ships are crewed by below minimum wage people from Asia on Panama flagged ships.

    The key is going to be ruining their reputation and getting British people to take alternative means of transport to France.
    Again, though, it would be very easy for the government to distinguish between cargo and ferries (as Ishmael said on the PT). It’s arbitrary but as I have pointed out above there are loads of arbitrary distinctions in English law.
    If it is so absolutely trivial, why is literally not a single person in the political or media advocating for this? And they aren't normally too slow on advocating policies that in theory are possible but in real world terms don't hold up.

    Starmer, who was super quick to (wrongly) claim the UK could just cut Russia off from SWIFT and all other Labour representatives aren't calling for anything like this. Their response is 100% focused upon a law banning fire / rehire (which I doubt applies here because old employees were employed in Jersey, new ones via Malta / Cyprus) and going forward excluding P&O from public sector contracts.

    I haven't heard a single person saying well all we need to do is make a simple change to the law to ensure P&O can't operate in British ports.
    Because there are consequences to doing it. And that there may well be better ways of achieving the same goal (such as on government contracting). Yet that doesn’t mean it cannot be done. Your original claim was that it was impossible - an utter nonsense.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    DavidL said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    NMW and high personal allowances.
    Modern Apprenticeships.
    Help to buy schemes for first time buyers.
    As per my last post, the average age of first time buyers is now over 30.
    Doesn't mean that it doesn't benefit some people under that age.
    I worded the post I referred to carefully to point out the difference between the spirit and the letter of the question.

    I mean, you could say that dishing out corrupt contracts to mates will probably benefit the son or daughter of one of the cronies, so hooray, someone under 30 benefits from that too... but is it really embracing the spirit of the question?
    Few policies, other than the triple lock, which the government have at least temporarily given up on, are focused on one particular age group. Most, at least in theory, are intended to benefit us all. What I was trying to do was identify policies that are more likely to benefit the young than the old. I would not dispute for a second it is easier to do the reverse.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.

    CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
    The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.

    Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
    In terms of benefits, it depends on the mechanism. The change to the taper rate had a big impact on people roughly 3/4 median (equivalised!) household income, and thus people around the poverty line (60% median income).

    The £20 uplift was good for much poorer people. But both are dwarfed by particularly harsh policies like the two child limit.
  • DavidLDavidL Posts: 53,812

    biggles said:

    I read the P&O thread just now. @IshmaelZ and I have had our differences but he is absolutely right on this, and Francis and Wales completely wrong. The government can do pretty much what it likes and could find a way to block P&O - and only P&O - from using our ports. It would take - what? - about a day of crafty thinking. The idea that it is somehow unable to do anything is for the birds.

    I want to make them suffer but if we did this, what would happen then? We would have signalled that our business environment can change on a six pence to punish one entity we don’t like. No, any Government action must be grounded in a policy and legal framework true for all.
    There are plenty of examples of this. For example, it is legal to kill rabbits and sell them for food but illegal to kill dogs and sell them for food. This is presumably because we really like dogs and aren’t as keen on rabbits.
    Speak for yourself!

    Our rabbit is much nicer than any dog I've met.
    I cast no personal judgement here. My friend has a pet rabbit and it’s one of the loveliest pets I have ever met!
    My daughter had 2 pet rabbits. Thank god they died, eventually.
  • EabhalEabhal Posts: 8,647
    Farooq said:

    DavidL said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    MaxPB said:

    Genuinely if anyone could give a Tory policy that actually helps people under 30 I’m all ears.

    Trying to fund the nhs so if you fall ill and need help, it will be there.
    Nah, the NHS is a policy for old people, young people are much less likely to use its services. CHB is right, the current government looks at working age people as piggy banks to raid to fund sweeties for old people to buy votes. It's a shame Starmer doesn't believe in women and thinks that blokes in dresses qualify.
    I’d had heart surgery before I was one. Other operations as a small child, more in my early twenties.
    Yes for sure you are more likely to need the nhs in older life, but plenty of the under 30’s need the nhs.
    Sure but the question was a policy for people under 30, the NHS is a passive policy for under 30s, it's an active one for over 70s though. The government is undoubtedly inclined to shit on young people and feather the nests of the retired.
    Ever see the episode of The Good Life where Margo pays her rates? She tries to only pay for the bits that she values, and not the rest. That’s the issue with tax. Someone has to pay, that’s the social contract. At some point the wheel turns full circle, and it’s your turn to benefit.
    Or maybe it won’t be. I’ll not lie, I think I’ve had my share of nhs spending over my years, so I don’t begrudge paying the tax.
    I get that life seems hard for youngsters. It was easy in the 80’s either. When unemployment was huge, and prospects were zero.
    All you can do is buckle down, improve yourself try to work hard, get lucky, and see what happens.
    The social contract is broken, though. Young people were asked, at great cost, to halt their lives for two years and now we're also being asked to pay for it and pay for the cost of social care while rich pensioners are seeing no tax rises.

    CHB is right, there's no getting around it. Old people seem to relish fucking up the lives of the following generations, it's not surprising that younger generations are waking up to it. Eventually we will get a Corbyn like character who will attack property rights and then we all lose.
    The increase in NI rather than IT was wrong at the time and is probably not right now but there was a chap on Today this morning who said that if Rishi reverses it on Wednesday then 3/4 of the benefit will go to households with above median income. If, on the other hand, the same money was spent on increasing benefits then 90% would go to those below median income. I know what I think the priority should be.

    Cutting the cost of my diesel, obvs....
    That smells of careful sophistry. Where do pensions come into this? And other income from wealth? Why did the Chancellor target NI as a way of trying to increase tax?
    So the devolved governments couldn't fiddle with it.
This discussion has been closed.