I see the Economist cover story this week paints Britain as “stagnation nation”, while the FT is reporting that the UK is “set for the highest inflation in the G7 until 2024”.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
Dumb final paragraph. Great British Railways doesn't come into force until next year, and five or more of the franchises are nationalised in any case and have been so for some time.
Next you'll be extolling the safety benefits of a privatised railway ... by using a nationalised railway as your exemplar.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
Are you sure about that? The people who will cause the biggest disruption with this strike are the signal men / women and they were working all the time.
And it's a simple test because without signal men you can run virtually no services.
40,000-50,000 people are going on strike, I doubt more than 5% of these are signalmen
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
I was answering a point about money, and I was sticking to the point.
Yes, we know strikes are inconvenient. Ideally they don't happen. But I think it's unwise for people to always blame the people taking the strike action, as some instinctively do. For every "but there's no need to strike" there's also a "but there's no need for an organisation to give people cause to strike". The healthiest reaction to hearing about a strike is to not make up your mind about whose fault it is before looking into the details. Sometimes the unions are right and sometimes they're wrong.
Agreed. And they are very possibly right in this case. The last major strike – the Tube strike in early spring – was ludicrous. This one seems more reasonable.
I just use Google Maps to tell me when I'm going to arrive. It's pretty damn accurate in my experience. All this mental calculation is very impressive but it feels a bit like learning pi to 100 decimal places. I don't feel like there's any need.
My Audi Sat Nav with live predictive traffic is chillingly accurate. It beats even Google Maps, although its live rerouting can get a bit silly at times when it advises you leave the M25 for two junctions to save 90 seconds. Still, one can ignore it.
M11 Junction 7A to Harlow opens soon (tomorrow, perhaps). It'll be interesting to see how quickly the various services update their maps to include it.
The junction will save Mrs J a good few minutes every day.
It doesn't appear to be on Google Maps or Bing Maps yet - then again, it doesn't need to be until it is open.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
Back in the day when I was commuting I would celebrate delayed trains and cancellations... basically like getting an after tax payrise.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
Dumb final paragraph. Great British Railways doesn't come into force until next year, and five or more of the franchises are nationalised in any case and have been so for some time.
Next you'll be extolling the safety benefits of a privatised railway ... by using a nationalised railways as your exemplar.
Funny old world.
You have utterly failed to address my points about safety on the railways, and instead just make stupid comments such as the above. Until you do, I'll take any post you can make on the topic as being utterly clueless.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So are the railwaymen supposed to accept a swingeing real terms cut in wages then? I suspect you might think differently if you were a railwayman.
Surely they can find a way to negotiate without punishing innocent people who can't resolve the dispute.
Oh why don't we play cards for her, he sneeringly replied, And just to make it interesting we'll have a shilling on the side.
'They described Starmer as "weak", a "slippery slimeball", "a people pleaser", having "no vision" and "someone who opposes for opposition's sake'.
Apart from a 'slippery slimeball' which I do not recognise, the rest is accurate and his performance at PMQs yesterday was panned across the media
I do not know if labour recognise they have a 'Starmer' problem and while he may well be a lawyer he is not a politician and we are seeing the public express a plague on all your houses
I expect the 148 will see Boris off before GE 24 and I do think with a new leader the conservatives could actually win yet again
Of course if Durham Police intervene, which I do nor expect, a whole new political scene immediately opens
I refer this mistaken Gentleman to the post I made some moments ago 😆
On this I think we should quietly agree to disagree, but I do like the Gentleman
That Boris is still there at the election and that the Tories lose the election is totally obvious now, there are more thoughtful things to discuss - such as on what platform do the Tories regain power on anytime soon? Boris hard Brexit with **** business? Or If in the post Boris situation they repudiate the Boris era, attack the Boris era as in Conservative especially fiscally, how much of Boris Brexit deal will Tories be attacking? Do they hold the new voters Brexit Boris brought along?
To what degree has this Boris era damaged the Tory brand for years to come?
Partygate damaged Boris, as far as brexit, covid and Ukraine he has a pass mark from me
Indeed, all the evidence is partygate 'ratnered' his personal brand and a new leader facing Starmer would have a good chance of a majority
Not based on the latest focus groups. The Tory brand is damaged after they voted to keep Johnson.
Yes but the 148 will terminate his premiership in due course
That's not nearly enough. And if the required 32 couldn't find reason to eject Johnson on his behaviour over the last two years they never will. Johnson could shoot Starmer dead right between the eyes and claim Parliamentary Privilege, and these guys would back him up. You are not going to find your 32.
Anyway, what happens next? Starmer gets his FPN and resigns, thus absolving Johnson of any Partygate guilt. Priti will bully Durham Constabulary into issuing the FPNs a day or two before the by elections. Another problem solved. Next, the economy. If Sunak can't find free magic money Johnson needs to find someone who can.
If Johnson remains unpopular after all that there must be some Trumpian means he can look at to bolster his position.
You are underestimating Mr Johnson's resolve BigG.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
The issue with this is fewer and fewer people have been given any reason to believe him. He's back in his comfort zone. Big promises, precious little detail.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Early GE? Looking at the polls and the economics, I don't see it. And 40% of his MPs having just said he shouldn't be PM.
Simplest explanation is the campaigning rather than governing is BoJo's Happy Place.
I just use Google Maps to tell me when I'm going to arrive. It's pretty damn accurate in my experience. All this mental calculation is very impressive but it feels a bit like learning pi to 100 decimal places. I don't feel like there's any need.
Right. But if I'm doing a journey of 140 miles and Google Maps tells me it'll take 3 hours 20 minutes, I know by inspection that's 60 minutes more than I would expect, so therefore there's something out of the ordinary to expect on the road - whether that's congestion, long periods of roadworks with painfully slow speed limits, or just much more at sub-70 speed limits than the average journey.
The brilliant thing is Google Maps will also tell you about things like accidents, road closures, sections of slow traffic. So you not only know to expect something, but you know what and where to expect it.
During a journey. Not so much when planning a journey.
Google maps is generally brilliant - and the detours it sometimes comes up with during a journey are often very useful. But it can also leave you in some sticky spots, try to direct you down places your car shouldn't go, and where it doesn't have the latest data can lead you badly astray. With a good dose of common sense, using it for navigation works fine.
On one cycle route Google maps appeared to want me to cycle on water. In fact the route was correct but goggle maps didn't show the foot/cycle bridge but seemed to know it was there for the route. I checked on another map that there was a bridge.
On our Normandy cycle ride using the cycle option it suggested a ferry to Jersey or Guernsey from our start point and a ferry back to our end point. It only involved about 100 metres cycling as opposed to the 400 km we planned to do. But in fairness to Goggle it didn't know our motives for getting from a) to b) i.e. pointless travel for the sheer enjoyment.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Hes going for May/June 23 after a spring giveaway and before the 12 month challenge
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
Are you sure about that? The people who will cause the biggest disruption with this strike are the signal men / women and they were working all the time.
And it's a simple test because without signal men you can run virtually no services.
40,000-50,000 people are going on strike, I doubt more than 5% of these are signalmen
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Hes going for May/June 23 after a spring giveaway and before the 12 month challenge
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
The benefit of a GE now(ish) is that it’s before the very worst of the economic news, and although there are signs of Brexgret, it is still limited to what passes for the intellectual right.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Early GE? Looking at the polls and the economics, I don't see it. And 40% of his MPs having just said he shouldn't be PM.
Simplest explanation is the campaigning rather than governing is BoJo's Happy Place.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Hes going for May/June 23 after a spring giveaway and before the 12 month challenge
And before the Boundary Review?
Hmmmm i forgot that but maybe he thinks if he can recover the numbers there is more benefit earlier..... Maybe autumn 23 after the boundaries? Or Final report June 23, ram it through, July election?
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
Are you sure about that? The people who will cause the biggest disruption with this strike are the signal men / women and they were working all the time.
And it's a simple test because without signal men you can run virtually no services.
40,000-50,000 people are going on strike, I doubt more than 5% of these are signalmen
This 2015 article from the BBC puts the number of signallers at, "more than 3,000".
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Early GE? Looking at the polls and the economics, I don't see it. And 40% of his MPs having just said he shouldn't be PM.
Simplest explanation is the campaigning rather than governing is BoJo's Happy Place.
Fair comment
I'm not sure he actually enjoys the campaigning, witness his escaping into nearby fridges. I suspect he need to boost his ego by gaining and holding a degree of status.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
Dumb final paragraph. Great British Railways doesn't come into force until next year, and five or more of the franchises are nationalised in any case and have been so for some time.
Next you'll be extolling the safety benefits of a privatised railway ... by using a nationalised railways as your exemplar.
Funny old world.
You have utterly failed to address my points about safety on the railways, and instead just make stupid comments such as the above. Until you do, I'll take any post you can make on the topic as being utterly clueless.
Okay?
For someone who presents as an arch-trainspotter, you don't seem to know much about the railways.
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
I can remember when you used to see a Navy ship or three being scrapped from high above - though no luck with the poem.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
Are you sure about that? The people who will cause the biggest disruption with this strike are the signal men / women and they were working all the time.
And it's a simple test because without signal men you can run virtually no services.
40,000-50,000 people are going on strike, I doubt more than 5% of these are signalmen
This 2015 article from the BBC puts the number of signallers at, "more than 3,000".
I'm not sure he actually enjoys the campaigning, witness his escaping into nearby fridges. I suspect he need to boost his ego by gaining and holding a degree of status.
He enjoys being adored.
In the past campaigning has offered that. Now, not so much...
The EU's top court delivers a stark message to British expats hoping to cling on to the trappings of EU citizenship after Brexit: You've lost your rights https://trib.al/66W9FJi
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
That's a beautiful stretch of coastline. But then I would say that, being a Fifer.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
The EU's top court delivers a stark message to British expats hoping to cling on to the trappings of EU citizenship after Brexit: You've lost your rights https://trib.al/66W9FJi
In sharp contrast to the UK, who set up a scheme to guarantee the rights of all EU expats when we left the bloc.
The EU's top court delivers a stark message to British expats hoping to cling on to the trappings of EU citizenship after Brexit: You've lost your rights https://trib.al/66W9FJi
In sharp contrast to the UK, who set up a scheme to guarantee the rights of all EU expats when we left the bloc.
Another one who hoped to continue playing golf despite refusing to pay the membership fees.
The EU's top court delivers a stark message to British expats hoping to cling on to the trappings of EU citizenship after Brexit: You've lost your rights https://trib.al/66W9FJi
In sharp contrast to the UK, who set up a scheme to guarantee the rights of all EU expats when we left the bloc.
The EU expats didn't ask to leave though, did they, nor did their home states.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
I personally suspect the metric martyrs were more victims of over-zealous and officious local government non-entities than the EU.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
I can remember when you used to see a Navy ship or three being scrapped from high above - though no luck with the poem.
It's such a shame that no Royal Navy battleship has been preserved, but I guess the country just didn't have the money in the 1950s. HMS Vanguard was (I think) the last, although that didn't have much of a service history. Nelson or Rodney survived until the late 1940s, and King George V until a decade after.
HMS Belfast is about a quarter of the displacement. The late battleships were massive beasts.
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
That's a beautiful stretch of coastline. But then I would say that, being a Fifer.
Just as well, as it slows things down somewhat with the trundles in and out of the curves - but it is always a treat.
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
That's a beautiful stretch of coastline. But then I would say that, being a Fifer.
But have you gone swimming in Pittenweem? I have; the locals thought I was crazy.
As we're on road geek mode, I wonder if anyone can answer a SABRE roads type question (these are better on PB anyway without the pernickity topic moderation).
There is one roundabout here in Huddersfield, that I've grown very used to, but it is unusual and actually now wondering if it is unique, but is little feted or discussed on the road forums. (kid highway code question triggered this).
Basically Shorehead is a three way roundabout, all dual carriageway approach roads, and a filter lane that by passes the roundabout in one direction. So far, pretty normal.
The slightly odd feature about it is how the filter lane and concomitant roundabout exit come back together as you exit towards Wakefield. The norm would be for them to join together a number of meters beyond the roundabout.
But they don't here. Effectively the roundabout itself and the filter lane form a short side on junction (think M1 | M621) and you exit the roundabout basically by changing lanes at that point. Light controls separate the traffic flows exiting from the filter and the roundabout, so it's less hairy than it sounds. (The lost occasionally jump from filter lane onto the roundabout, which is a fun manoeuvre).
Can anyone think of anywhere else with such an arrangement, as it occurs to me that I never have.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
I personally suspect the metric martyrs were more victims of over-zealous and officious local government non-entities than the EU.
Oh indeed. Typical gold plating we used to get all the time and I am sure will still get but just in a different form.
The EU's top court delivers a stark message to British expats hoping to cling on to the trappings of EU citizenship after Brexit: You've lost your rights https://trib.al/66W9FJi
So you mean that all those Remainers who argued we should create “settled status” as a gesture of goodwill were… wrong… about the likelihood of the EU to respond in kind?
The next stop is Aberdour says my slow moving train. Always reminds me of Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour It's fifty fathoms deep, And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Depending on the direction, you'll have passed, or be passing, the monument to Alexander III and his fall off the cliff on the [edit] Pettycur! side of Burntisland:
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede That Scotland led in luive and le. Away wes sonce of ale and brede, Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle; Oure gold wes changed into lede. Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte, Succour Scotland and remede, That stad is in perplexyte.
Indeed I will, and I have already done "the next stop's Kirkcaldy."
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
I can remember when you used to see a Navy ship or three being scrapped from high above - though no luck with the poem.
It's such a shame that no Royal Navy battleship has been preserved, but I guess the country just didn't have the money in the 1950s. HMS Vanguard was (I think) the last, although that didn't have much of a service history. Nelson or Rodney survived until the late 1940s, and King George V until a decade after.
HMS Belfast is about a quarter of the displacement. The late battleships were massive beasts.
Indeed, though the two 15" guns outside the IWM are some sort of token.
The Inverkeithing scrappies were a good place to find all sorts of stuff - clearing out my late dad's house I found some lino still in less used areas which he had got very cheap off an old liner in the early 1950s.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
By repeating lies I assume you mean repeating what is stated in public accounts of what happened. You may have some kind of deep inside knowledge of the case, or you may be making it up, I have no way of judging. I will go by what I can read in the historical record, thanks. Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
The issue with this is fewer and fewer people have been given any reason to believe him. He's back in his comfort zone. Big promises, precious little detail.
The real issue is that it demonstrates an incapacity to effectively govern. He has no other mode than campaigning mode.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
Do you have a link to a report about the case?
Go look on the internet. There are dozens of pictures of Steve Thoburn (for example) on his fruit stall with signs showing weights in both imperial and metric equivalent. He had two sets of scales, on in imperial and one in metric. He was prosecuted for using the imperial scales even though he was asked for produce in pounds by the undercover officer. He always said if he had been asked in kilos he could have used the other set o scales right there in his shop.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
During Covid when hardly any trains were running thousands of rail workers received full pay for very limited working.
PS. I will be voting LD for as long as The Clown remains Tory leader. This has convinced me not to lend vote to the Labour dinosaurs.
If the cost of living rises by 10%, I think it's perfectly legitimate to use whatever means at your disposal to try to secure an equivalent pay rise.
In the case of salaried professionals, that's usually quitting your job at Corporation X and going to work at Corporation Y on a 10% better package. That is how the game is played.
In the case of workers where the pool of employers is small (or the state), the only real option other than quitting and doing something else entirely (with the step back in pay that usually entails) is collective bargaining.
It is not rail workers fault that the cost of living has gone up by 10%.
It's not rail passengers' fault either, but as ever they are the ones that the unions punish.
So your point is we should all just shut up and accept 10% pay cuts?
I don't care what the unions do as long as they don't punish the innocent.
That sounds pretty entitled. Not every inconvenience in your cotton wool life is a "punishment".
Given how much rail season tickets cost, feeling entitled that the workers will turn up and do their job seems quite fair.
You can get a pro-rata refund if you're unable to travel though
That's of little help if your job requires you to get into your workplace.
This strike is disastrous timing for a rail system that needs to attract back as many passengers as it can after the Covid disruptions.
I can understand the staff wanting more money, but that either comes from increased state subsidy or passengers' pockets. The government have spent billions supporting the network during Covid, and have an investment budget into the railways for tens of billions over the next few years.
The money has to come from somewhere. I can't see fares increasing for those who are equally (or more) hard-up being popular. And if you want state subsidies increasing, I'd have to ask where the money comes from. Do we want network enhancements scrapping?
Also note: we moved back to a semi-nationalised 'British Railways', and within a year we have our first near-national strike for over two decades.
Dumb final paragraph. Great British Railways doesn't come into force until next year, and five or more of the franchises are nationalised in any case and have been so for some time.
Next you'll be extolling the safety benefits of a privatised railway ... by using a nationalised railways as your exemplar.
Funny old world.
You have utterly failed to address my points about safety on the railways, and instead just make stupid comments such as the above. Until you do, I'll take any post you can make on the topic as being utterly clueless.
Okay?
For someone who presents as an arch-trainspotter, you don't seem to know much about the railways.
Really?
Look at the few accidents on the railways between 1994 and 2022 compared to the previous decade (and especially from 2010 to 2022), when the railways were part-privatised and part-nationalised. And realise that causal factors of accidents sit on both sides of that divide: an infrastructure failure that cause an accident would mostly lie on the nationalised Network Rail (for the period that existed); driver error or train failure lies on the generally privatised side.
Both these sides worked well to give an absolutely unprecedented safety record (although there were some tragedies, and some near-misses). And it did not happen under good old BR.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
By repeating lies I assume you mean repeating what is stated in public accounts of what happened. You may have some kind of deep inside knowledge of the case, or you may be making it up, I have no way of judging. I will go by what I can read in the historical record, thanks. Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
Erstwhile Remainers, or regretful Leavers, arguing the toss about percentage points of GDP and customs forms are still missing the fundamental choice on identity that was made.
We chose an identity that doesn't exist.
That is why there is perpetual angst and the matter will not rest.
What?? Britishness does notr exist? Nor Englishness?
Go jump in a lake in Brussels. No wonder you guys lost. You would lose again. The mask just keeps slipping
My wife and I have British Passports
We have always been British ("subjects" let us not forget). Although many of us liked to think of ourselves as *also* citizens of the EU and the benefits that brought. 51% of the electorate were gulled into throwing that away on our behalf with nothing better (such as EEA) to replace it in order to advance the career ego of Boris Johnson and to give right wing nutjobs like @Leon something to jerk off about when he is not watching PornHub.
There wasn't much evidence of that before the referendum. And if there were so many benefits, why wasn't the Remain campaign able to mount a positive pro-EU campaign?
Because the negative messaging of Leave ( a negative message in itself) was greater than the negative messaging of Remain. Negative messaging resonates well with the terminally gullible. That is why it resonates so well with you clearly, and is why people who are essentially negative like you and Leon still believe in Brexit.
Perhaps the negative messaging worked because the EU was pretty unpopular with the voters. Even a lot of people who voted Remain did so on the basis of its being the lesser evil, not with any enthusiasm.
Which thought is devastating about the Remain campaign. It seems to me that it was always close, and I found it hard to believe Brexit could win because the combined establishment was so used to getting its way about things.
But Remain could never decide whether their line was: The EU is a pragmatic free trade area but otherwise not very politically interesting OR the pan European vision is something to get excited about and positively vote for.
The first, which dominated, was a falsehood, and everyone knew it; the second fizzled but the younger voters who thought this - a perfectly reasonable thought- stayed at home in large numbers.
We are still talking about imperial measures which is a sign of Boris’s utter genius. It doesn’t matter how many times he announces them, or if it ever happens, they invoke something deep in the British psyche.
I grew up with metric in NZ but imperial measures are baked deeply into English (and indeed American) literature, poetry and song.
As a liberal, I can hardly blame the EU for insisting on a standard set of weights and measures. It’s the very stuff of single-market-making; never mind the consumer protection angle.
As a Gaullist with occasional “romantic conservative” twinges, I’m in favour of keeping them around so long as an optional extra if people want to.
The metric martyrs should never have been prosecuted.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
Do you have a link to a report about the case?
Go look on the internet. There are dozens of pictures of Steve Thoburn (for example) on his fruit stall with signs showing weights in both imperial and metric equivalent. He had two sets of scales, on in imperial and one in metric. He was prosecuted for using the imperial scales even though he was asked for produce in pounds by the undercover officer. He always said if he had been asked in kilos he could have used the other set o scales right there in his shop.
I thought that trading standards had removed the stamp certifying that the scales were fair. And so he was selling goods using an unapproved set of scales. If traders are allowed to do that, should consumers all carry their own sets of weights and measures with them to check the scales themselves?
We are still talking about imperial measures which is a sign of Boris’s utter genius. It doesn’t matter how many times he announces them, or if it ever happens, they invoke something deep in the British psyche.
I grew up with metric in NZ but imperial measures are baked deeply into English (and indeed American) literature.
As a liberal, I can hardly blame the EU for insisting on a standard set of weights and measures. It’s the very stuff of single-market-making; never mind the consumer protection angle.
As a Gaullist with occasional “romantic Conservative” twinges, I’m in favour of keeping them around so long as an optional extra if people want to.
The metric martyrs should never have been prosecuted.
I met a bloke, about 30, in the street today and asked how the new baby was (girl, Isabel, by the way). Doing fine. Weight at birth? I asked: 7 lb 1 oz came the reply.
Kate Bush is No. 1 on the US iTunes single chart with "Running up that hill." Her album "Hounds of Love" is No. 1 o the Billboard Chart.
Apparently the song was used on a TV show...
Apparently the Spotify algorithm responded by putting her as a 'rising star'.
LOL. A rising star from 1978, when I was a baby!
I remember her singing Wuthering Heights on TOTP when I was a teenager and thinking WTAF was that? Hypnotic though.
First female self-written number 1 I believe. She was a teenager too.
Fantastic singer - truly a legend
She also - and this may merit some fact-checking, now I come to write it - invented the headset - i.e. that headphone-and-speaker combination used by some performers.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
By repeating lies I assume you mean repeating what is stated in public accounts of what happened. You may have some kind of deep inside knowledge of the case, or you may be making it up, I have no way of judging. I will go by what I can read in the historical record, thanks. Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
Kate Bush is No. 1 on the US iTunes single chart with "Running up that hill." Her album "Hounds of Love" is No. 1 o the Billboard Chart.
Apparently the song was used on a TV show...
Apparently the Spotify algorithm responded by putting her as a 'rising star'.
LOL. A rising star from 1978, when I was a baby!
I remember her singing Wuthering Heights on TOTP when I was a teenager and thinking WTAF was that? Hypnotic though.
First female self-written number 1 I believe. She was a teenager too.
Fantastic singer - truly a legend
She also - and this may merit some fact-checking, now I come to write it - invented the headset - i.e. that headphone-and-speaker combination used by some performers.
My memory is that it is claimed that she was the first person to use such a headset during her ?79? tour. I don't know if she invented it, if it was invented for her, or if she just used another's invention.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
I personally suspect the metric martyrs were more victims of over-zealous and officious local government non-entities than the EU.
The magistrates can and should have given an absolute discharge (and costs) to show that such cases, unless they involve bad faith or fraud, are too trivial to prosecute.
Kate Bush is No. 1 on the US iTunes single chart with "Running up that hill." Her album "Hounds of Love" is No. 1 o the Billboard Chart.
Apparently the song was used on a TV show...
Apparently the Spotify algorithm responded by putting her as a 'rising star'.
LOL. A rising star from 1978, when I was a baby!
I remember her singing Wuthering Heights on TOTP when I was a teenager and thinking WTAF was that? Hypnotic though.
First female self-written number 1 I believe. She was a teenager too.
I fine that amazing. Surely there were successful female singer songwriters who got to No 1 in the 60's?
Maybe didn’t get to #1 though. Dusty, Sandy, Cilla et al did not write their own songs.
Aretha wrote some of her stuff but not the big hits.
Carole King was 70s (at least as a solo artist), and Joni Mitchell was never hugely commercially successful.
Kate Bush is ace. She’s iconic in our household.
Not many female singer songerwriters before the 70s. Not many singer-songwriters at all, come to that. To me, singing a song someone else has written - specifically a song which someone else has written for you to sing - seems quite odd. Even the Kaiser Chiefs seem a little odd to me, where the songs are written by the drummer. But for most of musical history songwriting and performing were seen as two entirely separate talents. I'm rather more impressed by good songwriters than good singers. Indeed, I find a good singing voice to be slightly suspect. But then, I like the Fall.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
The issue with this is fewer and fewer people have been given any reason to believe him. He's back in his comfort zone. Big promises, precious little detail.
The real issue is that it demonstrates an incapacity to effectively govern. He has no other mode than campaigning mode.
So we are in agreement, it’s right for Boris, to be on top internal threats and work to maximise GE vote, for Boris to be in full on electioneering mode all the way up to that General Election?
Farooq said down thread the glow from the uplands is they are on fire - that may be over the top, but Boris speech here was a whole lot more sunlit uplands to focus on. Perhaps instead of previous ones, as he not only criticised 13 years of Tory government in the guise of blaming labour, no money left, debt, high taxes, energy policy years behind, but also in this speech seemed to run against his manifesto of 2019.
The emphasis on reigning in spending, in favour of tax cuts and big cuts in government, is very much electioneering - it’s maybe NOT the right thing economically to do in the next two years - it’s like how Tory’s shot labours fox in 1992, kicking what honestly needed to be done till after the win? It’s also not sounding like his 2019 pitch anymore?
Boris emphasis on higher interest rates suggests this too? So how independent is the Bank of England if Boris wants those rates up?
Don’t mention early one? It’s not wait till the last money speech, it’s a let’s be ready for that election speech. If Labour lose both leader and Deputy can you rule out a “its their own stonking fault if they don’t have a proper PM to offer you in this election” election?
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
Do you have a link to a report about the case?
Go look on the internet. There are dozens of pictures of Steve Thoburn (for example) on his fruit stall with signs showing weights in both imperial and metric equivalent. He had two sets of scales, on in imperial and one in metric. He was prosecuted for using the imperial scales even though he was asked for produce in pounds by the undercover officer. He always said if he had been asked in kilos he could have used the other set o scales right there in his shop.
Right. So I think the issue there is that the scales which are imperial-only aren't legal for use. He could have done exactly as he did had he used a set of scales with both measures on them.
This will be because there's no way for an inspector to validate his imperial-only scales.
Commercial scales have to be properly calibrated. You can't just use any old scales that you have lying around.
Kate Bush is No. 1 on the US iTunes single chart with "Running up that hill." Her album "Hounds of Love" is No. 1 o the Billboard Chart.
Apparently the song was used on a TV show...
Apparently the Spotify algorithm responded by putting her as a 'rising star'.
LOL. A rising star from 1978, when I was a baby!
I remember her singing Wuthering Heights on TOTP when I was a teenager and thinking WTAF was that? Hypnotic though.
First female self-written number 1 I believe. She was a teenager too.
I fine that amazing. Surely there were successful female singer songwriters who got to No 1 in the 60's?
Maybe didn’t get to #1 though. Dusty, Sandy, Cilla et al did not write their own songs.
Aretha wrote some of her stuff but not the big hits.
Carole King was 70s (at least as a solo artist), and Joni Mitchell was never hugely commercially successful.
Kate Bush is ace. She’s iconic in our household.
Not many female singer songerwriters before the 70s. Not many singer-songwriters at all, come to that. To me, singing a song someone else has written - specifically a song which someone else has written for you to sing - seems quite odd. Even the Kaiser Chiefs seem a little odd to me, where the songs are written by the drummer. But for most of musical history songwriting and performing were seen as two entirely separate talents. I'm rather more impressed by good songwriters than good singers. Indeed, I find a good singing voice to be slightly suspect. But then, I like the Fall.
In accordance with the PGA TOUR’s Tournament Regulations, the players competing this week without releases are suspended or otherwise no longer eligible to participate in PGA TOUR tournament play, including the Presidents Cup.
“These players have made their choice for their own financial-based reasons,” Monahan wrote to the TOUR’s membership. “But they can’t demand the same PGA TOUR membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”
Mostly players well past their prime, but Dustin Johnson is a big name.
Interestingly, the statement doesn't say for how long the players are banned. Note that there is no mention of the Ryder Cup.
“We will supercharge leaseholders’ ability to buy their own freeholds”
Okay, so what does this do to get people on the housing ladder?
How about assessing it not as a flawless policy, not as one that may actually kick costs and inherent vices into the future - this is about Boris and Tories winning the next election, so consider it as a Prime Minister saying “mortgages used to be 3x wages, now 9x wages, but we are going to help you!” Voters will say. I like that sound of that, what have I got to lose voting for that?
That’s the way to look at this. I am right. The sneering PB lefties calling me Nadine are brainless. Listen to me. I’m calling it right here. This speech is an opposition speech to the last two years and 12 years in office. It’s exactly what people want to hear, and the delivery was spot on.
PB is lucky to have me, the rest of you slow and cumbersome at realising what’s really happening.
Wether it’s another 30 months or not - the starting gun on the next general election was fired by the Prime Minister today. This is full on electioneering mode. Evidence? Eye catching voter catching ideas to be delivered and payed for in future. Evidence? As we slip from high inflation to stagnant growth in 2023, spending will slow in favour of tax cuts - that sounds to me like voters happy for election time, the cost of that manufactured happiness comes other side of the election. Tell me I’m wrong.
BBC have just said the same - Boris in full campaigning mode
Do not mention early GE please
Early GE? Looking at the polls and the economics, I don't see it. And 40% of his MPs having just said he shouldn't be PM.
Simplest explanation is the campaigning rather than governing is BoJo's Happy Place.
Not at all baked in but..... Assume Boris wants to stay PM at all costs. His MPs have foolishly given away their only easy chance of a fairly bloodless coup, but the form book says he is now on borrowed time.
Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.
1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.
2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.
From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?
(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).
The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.
Confirmation: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1534901334738092032 British citizens Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, and Moroccan national Saadoun Brahim, all of whom fought on contract with Ukraine’s military, have been sentenced to death by the Kremlin’s puppet authorities in Donetsk in show trial that lasted mere days. They were not mercenaries.
Whether this gets carried out is an open question. What's not up for debate is that this is another grotesque breach of international law.
Confirmation: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1534901334738092032 British citizens Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, and Moroccan national Saadoun Brahim, all of whom fought on contract with Ukraine’s military, have been sentenced to death by the Kremlin’s puppet authorities in Donetsk in show trial that lasted mere days. They were not mercenaries.
Whether this gets carried out is an open question. What's not up for debate is that this is another grotesque breach of international law.
Confirmation: https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1534901334738092032 British citizens Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, and Moroccan national Saadoun Brahim, all of whom fought on contract with Ukraine’s military, have been sentenced to death by the Kremlin’s puppet authorities in Donetsk in show trial that lasted mere days. They were not mercenaries.
Whether this gets carried out is an open question. What's not up for debate is that this is another grotesque breach of international law.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
Do you have a link to a report about the case?
Go look on the internet. There are dozens of pictures of Steve Thoburn (for example) on his fruit stall with signs showing weights in both imperial and metric equivalent. He had two sets of scales, on in imperial and one in metric. He was prosecuted for using the imperial scales even though he was asked for produce in pounds by the undercover officer. He always said if he had been asked in kilos he could have used the other set o scales right there in his shop.
Right. So I think the issue there is that the scales which are imperial-only aren't legal for use. He could have done exactly as he did had he used a set of scales with both measures on them.
This will be because there's no way for an inspector to validate his imperial-only scales.
Commercial scales have to be properly calibrated. You can't just use any old scales that you have lying around.
This is dancing on the head of a pin to justify unacceptable laws. Your comment previously was "They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that". This is untrue. Not least because the clause within the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994 which allowed the continued display of imperial units was time limited and ran out at the end of 1999. Hence the reason for the spate of prosecutions in 2000.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
By repeating lies I assume you mean repeating what is stated in public accounts of what happened. You may have some kind of deep inside knowledge of the case, or you may be making it up, I have no way of judging. I will go by what I can read in the historical record, thanks. Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
Nah. You earn them.
By disagreeing with you?
No by calling people who were persecuted by the state 'wankers'. I was just responding in kind.
I don't think Germany's support for Ukraine has been as poor as many make out. They have done a lot. It's just that the 'lot' tends not to be in the things the Ukrainians need most urgently; it's not as much as they could (and should) have done, and the will-we-wont-we progress of the support looks incredibly bad.
'Pledging' equipment is not enough. It doesn't count until the Ukrainians can use it.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Exactly. They were denying choice to customers. They could have continued to use imperial alongside metric but they chose not to because they were being wankers. They probably misused apostrophes too.
Stop repeating lies. It is you who are being a wanker once again commenting from ignorance.
By repeating lies I assume you mean repeating what is stated in public accounts of what happened. You may have some kind of deep inside knowledge of the case, or you may be making it up, I have no way of judging. I will go by what I can read in the historical record, thanks. Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
Nah. You earn them.
By disagreeing with you?
No by calling people who were persecuted by the state 'wankers'. I was just responding in kind.
They were prosecuted for not obeying the law with respect to the correct use of weights and measures, including the use of unverified scales, then tried to make out that they were martyrs in some kind of noble cause. That seems pretty wankerish behaviour. By contrast, I simply expressed a different opinion to you. And for that you have called me a wanker, a liar etc. We should be able to disagree on this forum without resorting to abuse. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond some people. Anyway, you are probably doing me a favour as I spend too much time on here, and this kind of nasty altercation is a good incentive to find something more useful to do with my time.
I have no interest in this specifically one way or another. But does everything have to be done just for economic benefit? Is it not worth repealing rules simply because they are pointless interference or serve no useful purpose?
Its the same with the debate about imperial measures. If the Government came along and said you MUST use imperial measures either solely or alongside metric then I would be right there with the strongest Remainer protesting against it. But simply saying you may use them if you like and repealing the law that prohibits their usage seems reasonable to me. Perhaps a bit pointless to most but I have always thought banning stuff for the sake of it to be pretty offensive behaviour, whether from a UK Government or the EU.
It's not just for the sake of it, though. There is a rational argument that allowing non-standard measures alongside standard ones opens the door slightly towards mischief that harms consumers. You can accept or reject that argument as you see fit, but saying it's just for the sake of it isn't right.
Metric measures were made legal in the UK in 1896. Most imperial measures were made illegal in 2000. So the system worked just fine for over a century. So yes it was changed just for the sake of it.
I thought that Imperial measures could still be used as a supplementary indicator.
Can you explain in what sense Imperial measures were made illegal in 2000?
Try telling that to those who were prosecuted for selling in imperial measures.
They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that. They were being bloody minded.
Actually they were not. That is a lie. I knew two of those involved and in both cases they had scales which could do both Imperial and metric and they were asked by the local trading standards undercover for amounts of goods in Imperial and then prosecuted when they did as asked. If you are going to comment on a subject at least try knowing something about it first.
Do you have a link to a report about the case?
Go look on the internet. There are dozens of pictures of Steve Thoburn (for example) on his fruit stall with signs showing weights in both imperial and metric equivalent. He had two sets of scales, on in imperial and one in metric. He was prosecuted for using the imperial scales even though he was asked for produce in pounds by the undercover officer. He always said if he had been asked in kilos he could have used the other set o scales right there in his shop.
Right. So I think the issue there is that the scales which are imperial-only aren't legal for use. He could have done exactly as he did had he used a set of scales with both measures on them.
This will be because there's no way for an inspector to validate his imperial-only scales.
Commercial scales have to be properly calibrated. You can't just use any old scales that you have lying around.
This is dancing on the head of a pin to justify unacceptable laws. Your comment previously was "They were prosecuted for not showing metric equivalents or for having scales that couldn’t do metric equivalents. They could’ve continued using Imperial measures as long as they did that". This is untrue. Not least because the clause within the Weights and Measures Act 1985 (Metrication) (Amendment) Order 1994 which allowed the continued display of imperial units was time limited and ran out at the end of 1999. Hence the reason for the spate of prosecutions in 2000.
It's not dancing on the head of a pin. It's a matter of being precise and practical.
I've said that I would like to see imperial measures used more in everyday life. Was the prosecution for displaying prices in imperial units? No, it wasn't.
Was the prosecution for supplying an imperial quantity of goods? No, it wasn't.
The prosecution was for using a set of scales that were not legal for commercial use. I have a set of kitchen scales at home that will return a metric measure of weight, but if I attempted to sell goods commercially using those scales I would be breaking the exact same law he was prosecuted under, even though I was using metric measurements. Because my domestic kitchen scales are marked as "not for commercial use". Just as his were not legal for commercial use.
I've bought goods in shops where I've asked for an imperial quantity of goods and these have been measured on scanners that give both metric and imperial values, so my goods have been weighed to an imperial measure and price paid calculated with the metric. That's perfectly legal.
I don't think Germany's support for Ukraine has been as poor as many make out. They have done a lot. It's just that the 'lot' tends not to be in the things the Ukrainians need most urgently; it's not as much as they could (and should) have done, and the will-we-wont-we progress of the support looks incredibly bad.
'Pledging' equipment is not enough. It doesn't count until the Ukrainians can use it.
I'd say it is as bad as it possibly can be and the German government has strategically failed with respect to Russia over decades. There is a potential for some big political and structural changes in Europe after this war.
Comments
Next you'll be extolling the safety benefits of a privatised railway ... by using a nationalised railway as your exemplar.
Funny old world.
Do not mention early GE please
The junction will save Mrs J a good few minutes every day.
It doesn't appear to be on Google Maps or Bing Maps yet - then again, it doesn't need to be until it is open.
http://www.leonardrossiter.com/reginaldperrin/Train.html
Okay?
And just to make it interesting we'll have a shilling on the side.
Anyway, what happens next? Starmer gets his FPN and resigns, thus absolving Johnson of any Partygate guilt. Priti will bully Durham Constabulary into issuing the FPNs a day or two before the by elections. Another problem solved. Next, the economy. If Sunak can't find free magic money Johnson needs to find someone who can.
If Johnson remains unpopular after all that there must be some Trumpian means he can look at to bolster his position.
You are underestimating Mr Johnson's resolve BigG.
He's back in his comfort zone. Big promises, precious little detail.
Simplest explanation is the campaigning rather than governing is BoJo's Happy Place.
Always reminds me of
Half o'er, half o'er to Aberdour
It's fifty fathoms deep,
And there lies guid Sir Patrick Spens
Wi'the Scots lords at his feet.
Maybe autumn 23 after the boundaries? Or Final report June 23, ram it through, July election?
Quhen Alysandyr oure kyng wes dede
That Scotland led in luive and le.
Away wes sonce of ale and brede,
Of wyne and wax, of gamyn and gle;
Oure gold wes changed into lede.
Cryst! Borne into Virgynyte,
Succour Scotland and remede,
That stad is in perplexyte.
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-32446717
Finding Inverkeithing a bit more of a challenge.
She was a teenager too.
https://twitter.com/philipkallan/status/1239483901799731200
In the past campaigning has offered that. Now, not so much...
HMS Belfast is about a quarter of the displacement. The late battleships were massive beasts.
I have; the locals thought I was crazy.
There is one roundabout here in Huddersfield, that I've grown very used to, but it is unusual and actually now wondering if it is unique, but is little feted or discussed on the road forums. (kid highway code question triggered this).
Basically Shorehead is a three way roundabout, all dual carriageway approach roads, and a filter lane that by passes the roundabout in one direction. So far, pretty normal.
The slightly odd feature about it is how the filter lane and concomitant roundabout exit come back together as you exit towards Wakefield. The norm would be for them to join together a number of meters beyond the roundabout.
But they don't here. Effectively the roundabout itself and the filter lane form a short side on junction (think M1 | M621) and you exit the roundabout basically by changing lanes at that point. Light controls separate the traffic flows exiting from the filter and the roundabout, so it's less hairy than it sounds. (The lost occasionally jump from filter lane onto the roundabout, which is a fun manoeuvre).
Can anyone think of anywhere else with such an arrangement, as it occurs to me that I never have.
Dusty, Sandy, Cilla et al did not write their own songs.
Aretha wrote some of her stuff but not the big hits.
Carole King was 70s (at least as a solo artist), and Joni Mitchell was never hugely commercially successful.
Kate Bush is ace. She’s iconic in our household.
The Inverkeithing scrappies were a good place to find all sorts of stuff - clearing out my late dad's house I found some lino still in less used areas which he had got very cheap off an old liner in the early 1950s.
Give over with the personal attacks on me, it's boring.
He has no other mode than campaigning mode.
Look at the few accidents on the railways between 1994 and 2022 compared to the previous decade (and especially from 2010 to 2022), when the railways were part-privatised and part-nationalised. And realise that causal factors of accidents sit on both sides of that divide: an infrastructure failure that cause an accident would mostly lie on the nationalised Network Rail (for the period that existed); driver error or train failure lies on the generally privatised side.
Both these sides worked well to give an absolutely unprecedented safety record (although there were some tragedies, and some near-misses). And it did not happen under good old BR.
But Remain could never decide whether their line was: The EU is a pragmatic free trade area but otherwise not very politically interesting OR the pan European vision is something to get excited about and positively vote for.
The first, which dominated, was a falsehood, and everyone knew it; the second fizzled but the younger voters who thought this - a perfectly reasonable thought- stayed at home in large numbers.
I grew up with metric in NZ but imperial measures are baked deeply into English (and indeed American) literature, poetry and song.
As a liberal, I can hardly blame the EU for insisting on a standard set of weights and measures. It’s the very stuff of single-market-making; never mind the consumer protection angle.
As a Gaullist with occasional “romantic conservative” twinges, I’m in favour of keeping them around so long as an optional extra if people want to.
The metric martyrs should never have been prosecuted.
More evidence of where that half-a-billion-a-year cost of Emergency Services Network delay is going
https://www.theregister.com/2022/06/09/uk_police_legacy_airwave_bill/
Christine McVie? Not solo, of course.
https://twitter.com/HoansSolo/status/1534625590560673792
The 🇺🇦 mayor of Kramatorsk: “Let me give you my professional opinion as mayor: if we don’t get heavy weapons in two or three weeks, we’re fucked.”
And it always is.
I'm rather more impressed by good songwriters than good singers. Indeed, I find a good singing voice to be slightly suspect. But then, I like the Fall.
Farooq said down thread the glow from the uplands is they are on fire - that may be over the top, but Boris speech here was a whole lot more sunlit uplands to focus on. Perhaps instead of previous ones, as he not only criticised 13 years of Tory government in the guise of blaming labour, no money left, debt, high taxes, energy policy years behind, but also in this speech seemed to run against his manifesto of 2019.
The emphasis on reigning in spending, in favour of tax cuts and big cuts in government, is very much electioneering - it’s maybe NOT the right thing economically to do in the next two years - it’s like how Tory’s shot labours fox in 1992, kicking what honestly needed to be done till after the win? It’s also not sounding like his 2019 pitch anymore?
Boris emphasis on higher interest rates suggests this too? So how independent is the Bank of England if Boris wants those rates up?
Don’t mention early one? It’s not wait till the last money speech, it’s a let’s be ready for that election speech. If Labour lose both leader and Deputy can you rule out a “its their own stonking fault if they don’t have a proper PM to offer you in this election” election?
This will be because there's no way for an inspector to validate his imperial-only scales.
Commercial scales have to be properly calibrated. You can't just use any old scales that you have lying around.
https://www.pgatour.com/news/2022/06/09/pga-tour-commissioner-jay-monahan-responds-players-competing-without-proper-releases.html
In accordance with the PGA TOUR’s Tournament Regulations, the players competing this week without releases are suspended or otherwise no longer eligible to participate in PGA TOUR tournament play, including the Presidents Cup.
“These players have made their choice for their own financial-based reasons,” Monahan wrote to the TOUR’s membership. “But they can’t demand the same PGA TOUR membership benefits, considerations, opportunities and platform as you. That expectation disrespects you, our fans and our partners.”
Mostly players well past their prime, but Dustin Johnson is a big name.
Interestingly, the statement doesn't say for how long the players are banned. Note that there is no mention of the Ryder Cup.
https://twitter.com/Conflicts/status/1534899592420106242
Compare Germany's deliberately tardy response with, say, this:
https://twitter.com/oryxspioenkop/status/1531219323167064064
Heavy weaponry pledged or already supplied to Ukraine by Czechia 🇨🇿🇺🇦
- 40~ T-72M1 MBTs
- 5+ BVP-1 IFVs
- 56 Pbv 501A IFVs
- Unknown Howitzers
- 20+ DANA SPGs
- 2S1 Gvozdika SPGs
- 20+ RM-70 MRLs
- Strela-10 SAMs
- Mi-24V attack helicopters
Boris has few options (apart from being replaced); he has in fact two.
1) Wait and see, recover ground, win the next election on merit/because Labour blows a fuse, between late 2023 and Jan 2025.
2) Go for broke right now, and prepare for a populist election this year before all the bills come in, and after some giveaways. Rely on his genius campaigning skills.
From Boris point of view which is less risky and more likely to be successful?
(2) Is the answer because if he starts now and goes full on he maximises his chances of being PM at the GE. If he goes for (1) his chance of still being leader is small(er).
The chances of the Tories winning are the same in each case. But his chance of being leader isn't.
That's the case for 2022 election.
https://twitter.com/ChristopherJM/status/1534901334738092032
British citizens Aiden Aslin and Shaun Pinner, and Moroccan national Saadoun Brahim, all of whom fought on contract with Ukraine’s military, have been sentenced to death by the Kremlin’s puppet authorities in Donetsk in show trial that lasted mere days. They were not mercenaries.
Whether this gets carried out is an open question.
What's not up for debate is that this is another grotesque breach of international law.
https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-armed-forces-law-parliament-/27290805.html
This is no different in essence than serving, for example, in the French Foreign Legion.
'Pledging' equipment is not enough. It doesn't count until the Ukrainians can use it.
By contrast, I simply expressed a different opinion to you. And for that you have called me a wanker, a liar etc. We should be able to disagree on this forum without resorting to abuse. Unfortunately, that seems to be beyond some people.
Anyway, you are probably doing me a favour as I spend too much time on here, and this kind of nasty altercation is a good incentive to find something more useful to do with my time.
I've said that I would like to see imperial measures used more in everyday life. Was the prosecution for displaying prices in imperial units? No, it wasn't.
Was the prosecution for supplying an imperial quantity of goods? No, it wasn't.
The prosecution was for using a set of scales that were not legal for commercial use. I have a set of kitchen scales at home that will return a metric measure of weight, but if I attempted to sell goods commercially using those scales I would be breaking the exact same law he was prosecuted under, even though I was using metric measurements. Because my domestic kitchen scales are marked as "not for commercial use". Just as his were not legal for commercial use.
I've bought goods in shops where I've asked for an imperial quantity of goods and these have been measured on scanners that give both metric and imperial values, so my goods have been weighed to an imperial measure and price paid calculated with the metric. That's perfectly legal.