Howdy, Stranger!

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

Hunt’s budget has almost no impact on the general election betting – politicalbetting.com

13567

Comments

  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,412

    Sandpit said:

    MikeL said:

    Stand by for a moment:

    Fuel Duty is going up 12p a litre in March 2023!

    Didnt’ we learn over the summer, that petrol (and especially diesel) prices feed into inflation absolutely everywhere in the economy?

    Anyway, not my problem, Super 98 is 85p a litre for me. Might upgrade the 5 litre V8 to the 6.2 litre V8.
    Doing your bit for climate change, eh?
    Yep, absolutely! The best thing one can possibly do for the planet, is buy an old car and keep it running.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,899
    This is what the graph looks for a political party that knows it will probably be out of power in two years and has decided to try a 'Hail Mary' pass, followed by scorched earth. ~AA https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1593295258414374912
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,899
    Tories Fear Voters’ Verdict After Hunt’s Tax Gloom

    One Tory MP described the mood in the party as one of total depression. Another said it was funereal.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-11-17/funereal-uk-tories-fear-voters-verdict-after-hunt-s-tax-gloom
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    The UK is locked into a decade of sharp decline. This is quite calamitous. The combination of high debt, high tax, high inflation and slow growth means we are all fucked

    We will again become The Sick Man of Europe. Time to head for the exit
  • nico679 said:

    A truly remarkable woman. It will feel very different without Nancy Pelosi heading the Dems in the House.

    My own fearless forcast, is that next US House Minority Leader will NOT be Steny Hoyer of Maryland (the state NOT the cookie) current (and perennial) House Dem #2.

    According to Politico, "Pelosi’s announcement paves the way for current caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), to succeed her after months of steadily building support."
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    RobD said:

    This is socialism, no wonder Michael Foot was in favour of Brexit.


    Like I asked earlier, how were people expecting the half trillion spent on the Covid response and now energy crisis would be paid for if not by increased taxes?
    I dare say few members of the public were expecting us to have the lowest growth in the G7
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,830
    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,899

    nico679 said:

    A truly remarkable woman. It will feel very different without Nancy Pelosi heading the Dems in the House.

    My own fearless forcast, is that next US House Minority Leader will NOT be Steny Hoyer of Maryland (the state NOT the cookie) current (and perennial) House Dem #2.

    According to Politico, "Pelosi’s announcement paves the way for current caucus chair Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-N.Y.), to succeed her after months of steadily building support."
    House Democrats will reshuffle leadership rankings. EXPECTED to be:
    1. Minority Leader Jeffries
    2. Whip Clark
    3. Caucus Chair Aguilar

    Clyburn stays on as assistant leader https://twitter.com/bresreports/status/1593298012108996609
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 35,899

    I dare say few members of the public were expecting us to have the lowest growth in the G7

    Whisper it quietly... "It's cos of Brexit"...
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.
  • Leon said:

    URGENT: HELP NEEDED


    Sauce Shop have for some inexplicable reason ceased production of my favourite sriracha. They now sell a weird combo of sriracha and chili which is OK but it's way too sweet and has tons of tomato. It is not sriracha

    Can anyone recommend a good hot, sour, proper sriracha? Flying Goose has never quite done it for me. Not hot enough

    I use sriracha CONSTANTLY. This is a CRISIS on a par with THE UKRAINE WAR

    THE classic - McIlhenny's original, old-school Tabasco sauce:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabasco_sauce

    BTW (also FYI) home base for McIlhenny's is Avery Island, Louisiana which is a remarkable tourist destination even without the great hot sauce:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Island_(Louisiana)
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 21,973
    Scott_xP said:

    This is what the graph looks for a political party that knows it will probably be out of power in two years and has decided to try a 'Hail Mary' pass, followed by scorched earth. ~AA https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1593295258414374912

    I thought that I had missed the bit about spending cuts. It seems that Hunt did too.
  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,715
    The changes to the windfall tax are going to fuck the North Sea independents. Not just the headline increase by a further 10 percentage pts but the reduction in the investment allowance from 80% to 29%. At a time when the independents already find it tough to finance themselves and we are supposedly desperate to improve energy security (away from the likes of horrid people like Qatar) and fix our balance of payments.

    Good one boys. Well done.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819

    Leon said:

    URGENT: HELP NEEDED


    Sauce Shop have for some inexplicable reason ceased production of my favourite sriracha. They now sell a weird combo of sriracha and chili which is OK but it's way too sweet and has tons of tomato. It is not sriracha

    Can anyone recommend a good hot, sour, proper sriracha? Flying Goose has never quite done it for me. Not hot enough

    I use sriracha CONSTANTLY. This is a CRISIS on a par with THE UKRAINE WAR

    THE classic - McIlhenny's original, old-school Tabasco sauce:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabasco_sauce

    BTW (also FYI) home base for McIlhenny's is Avery Island, Louisiana which is a remarkable tourist destination even without the great hot sauce:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Avery_Island_(Louisiana)
    I like Tabasco, but I want Sriracha

    I think Huy Fong might be my answer. Just ordered
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431

    Scott_xP said:

    This is what the graph looks for a political party that knows it will probably be out of power in two years and has decided to try a 'Hail Mary' pass, followed by scorched earth. ~AA https://twitter.com/alexwickham/status/1593295258414374912

    I thought that I had missed the bit about spending cuts. It seems that Hunt did too.
    No, given the current polls he just left further austerity for Starmer and Reeves to deal with in the likely next Labour government, with the unions and Labour left they will likely have to raise taxes significantly further to avoid spending cuts
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    Nigelb said:

    Should be fun.
    I hear Giuliani's looking for a new gig.

    Kari Lake declines to concede, says she’s assembling legal team
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3739934-kari-lake-declines-to-concede-says-shes-assembling-legal-team/

    Lake v The Curse of Leondamus?

    Should make a great case
  • pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    It will be Single Market membership
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
  • The current iteration of the Tory Party needs to FOAD.


  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,412

    The current iteration of the Tory Party needs to FOAD.


    You voted for Sunak, did you not?
  • BREAKING: Ian Blackford is reportedly facing a coup from within his ranks of SNP MPs to replace him as the party's Westminster leader

    https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/1593304224384880642
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 62,811
    edited November 2022
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    It will be Single Market membership
    Macron's proposal on outer perimeter cooperation seems a sensible compromise

    Single market membership is also sensible but the devil will be in the detail
  • BTW, in case y'all didn't here the news

    On Wed, in vote between Mitch McConnell and Rick Scott for the next US Senate Minority Leader, the incumbent pounded the challenger (chairman of GOP Senate campaign committee this cycle) like a stump into the Potomac mud.

    McConnell 37 versus Scott 10
  • Sandpit said:

    The current iteration of the Tory Party needs to FOAD.


    You voted for Sunak, did you not?
    As the least worst option, your candidate fucked up the economy for a generation, and will keep the party out for a similar generation.

    Truss supporters, like Brexit supporters, really should reflect on the unflushable turds they've given the country.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,988
    Nigelb said:

    Should be fun.
    I hear Giuliani's looking for a new gig.

    Kari Lake declines to concede, says she’s assembling legal team
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3739934-kari-lake-declines-to-concede-says-shes-assembling-legal-team/

    Is there a Four Seasons in Arizona ?

    By no means the biggest problem with him but apparently he farts more or less continually.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479

    BREAKING: Ian Blackford is reportedly facing a coup from within his ranks of SNP MPs to replace him as the party's Westminster leader

    https://twitter.com/scotnational/status/1593304224384880642

    That’s what he gets for quoting Scottish subsamples
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 28,262
    moonshine said:

    The changes to the windfall tax are going to fuck the North Sea independents. Not just the headline increase by a further 10 percentage pts but the reduction in the investment allowance from 80% to 29%. At a time when the independents already find it tough to finance themselves and we are supposedly desperate to improve energy security (away from the likes of horrid people like Qatar) and fix our balance of payments.

    Good one boys. Well done.

    We're not desperate to improve energy security. This Government has no intention to improve energy security beyond platitudes.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    It will be Single Market membership
    No chance IMO, sounds too much like going back into the EU for low info voters.

    However, regulatory alignment and a benign visa regime for young people from the EU could be the frame.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    General Election now. Get rid of these twats
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,701
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    You're off then?

    (I don't imagine that London will lose it's cachet.)


    Labour would have been worse undoubtedly, but there's a huge failure to either acknowledge some great issue, or to just deal with it.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,239
    So a majority of American voters decided to give the GOP two years with a house majority in which they’ll spend their time not trying to help the country but the first thing they’ve decided to do is to investigate Hunter Biden and go after Jo Biden for some offences that they haven’t made up yet .

    The GOP are a cancer on the USA .
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 23,479
    The hidden fuel duty hike could be a story?
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    edited November 2022

    Leon said:

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    It will be Single Market membership
    No chance IMO, sounds too much like going back into the EU for low info voters.

    However, regulatory alignment and a benign visa regime for young people from the EU could be the frame.
    I don't think anyone will care. Living standards are going to PLUNGE. We are facing economic pain the likes of which no one can remember - literally (outside of World War 2)

    Starmer will be able to do what he likes - indeed I suspect the clamour to rejoin the SM will be loud from almost every quarter

    There may well be a push to actual Rejoin. If things are as bad I as I suspect

    For the avoidance of doubt I do not think our present state of fucked-up-ness is due to Brexit. It has been a modest negative but the Plague and the War have been vastly more negative

    But none of that matters. In the public mind Brexit will now be associated with economic calamity, and the calls to reverse it will begin. And SM membership will be the first step - and I reckon it will happen after 2024
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 42,645

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Some folk will not care - only that it strengthens the Tory vote.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,701

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    I may be wrong but I thought that the population was actually getting younger. Due entirely to immigration of course.

    Happy to see what stats you have.
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Cannot blame them, I'm thinking about emigrating, either that or retire at 50, which is fewer than six years away.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,239
    Not happy with screwing their grandchildren by voting Brexit the vast majority of the blue rinse brigade are now creaming off even more of what’s on offer leaving younger people feeding off scraps .

  • moonshinemoonshine Posts: 5,715
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    The Tories are in this mess because they didn’t dare stand up to the Labour Party and its media outriders over the last few years. And yet again today. Labour will win. And will be even worse. What follows Labour goodness only knows.

  • novanova Posts: 690
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Only about half as densely populated as Rwanda apparently...
  • kinabalukinabalu Posts: 41,988
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Oh you're running with this line now then. It's a bit Lozza Fox but I suppose it does no harm to air it.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,239
    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.
  • Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Look at all the places that are experiencing mass emigration. Rural France, most of Spain, the small towns of the Red Wall. More exotic ones that celebrity flintknappers get paid to visit.

    They're dismal and lifeless, because the people who go are the people with life. And then the towns die. We really don't want emigration.

    But given that the country has been run as a preservationist theme park with a banking sector to pay the bills, it's going to be hard to avoid.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Don’t say that; the Curse of Leondamus might well be the only thing that could save them now….
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 18,159
    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. I'd say pretty much what he had to do.

    I'm disappointed that HS2 NE is still deleted, and that the Housing Market is left unreformed.

    A lot of fiscal drag. Good to see some reform of top rate taxes. Hopefully the £100-£125k marginal rate will be next.

    I did not hear anything on defence spending. Aha - I see 2% GDP will be maintained. That may be code for an effective reduction, depending how it is counted.

    I wonder if a typical energy bill will be anywhere near pro-rata £3000 by the time we get to April.

    Brave, but sensible, to go for a revaluation for business rates. A time bomb? Last time it was like stuck pigs squealing to heaven for those not paying wrt their disproportionate property price increases.

    Sensible to raise Min Wage (I think to the highest net in Western Europe), and benefits / basic pensions by inflation rate.

    Local Council finances look to be under threat. I missed whether these would be restricted to +5% on Council Tax this year. Those are also crying out for a re-valuation or reform.

    To me (others will differ) Reeves' speech was a vacuum - about 95% pre-recorded rhetoric.

    Big suspicion is, what good news there is got announced in speech, first impressions matter so they are shaping the first impressions. More controversial things like the Defence Budget cut you flagged, hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly.
    On Topic. And as we were saying “what good news there is got announced in speech, controversial things hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly”

    And so it begins


    This was in the March Budget too (it's a bigger increase now because it's linked to RPI which is higher than previously forecast but it's not a change in policy, it was in there already).
    About time too. There are finite amounts of fossil fuels in the ground, and burning them is destroying our environment, so anything that will dissuade their use and encourage the use of cleaner alternatives is to be commended. And it brings in a few bob too.
    You're thinking too short term. Coal, oil and gas are - so long as the sun keeps shining - all renewable sources.
    I don't think that's right. I think all the fossil fuel deposits were laid down before the more recent evolution of fungi and bacteria that would now break down organic deposits before they could be converted to fossil fuels.
  • pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    The way that you manage to turn every single decision that the Tory government makes into a problem for Labour is truly impressive. Kudos.
    Not every decision but the triple lock is sacrosanct to him and the rest of my comments are plainly obvious
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 4,830

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    We can't know for sure what the other parties are going to come out with until they're forced to tip their hands at the next election, but I'd agree that if Labour is offering same as Tories but with a few bells and whistles paid for by some kind of wealth tax then there won't be any point in bothering to vote for them, either.

    I've kind of half written off Labour already because I strongly suspect that when it comes to the moment of decision they'll choose to suck OAP cock and try to fob off the young with long on rhetoric, short on detail green policies and perhaps a bit of token financial relief for students. The Lib Dems invented the triple lock and are pitching to become the new home for the filthy rich Home Counties Nimby, so the likelihood of their committing to doing anything of any value whatsoever is even more remote than their finding themselves in a position actually to do it.
  • nico679 said:

    So a majority of American voters decided to give the GOP two years with a house majority in which they’ll spend their time not trying to help the country but the first thing they’ve decided to do is to investigate Hunter Biden and go after Jo Biden for some offences that they haven’t made up yet .

    The GOP are a cancer on the USA .

    You do have a point.

    Yet strange as it may seem, loss of US House could work to Biden's and Democrat's favor in next two years.

    > For one thing, wretched excess AND disunity of GOP will likely be on full display, and then some.

    > For another, and perhaps more important, Democrats will NOT be in control of the executive AND legislative branches of federal govt.

    > As for judicial branch, Democrats will also still be willing AND able to contrast their message (proposed legislation) AND actions (federal court appointments) with Republican control of SCOTUS.

    Note that having his party control just ONE chamber (preferably Senate due to advise & consent) has in past enhanced rather than detracted from leverage & effectiveness of POTUS viz-a-viz Congress.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 8,317
    moonshine said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    The Tories are in this mess because they didn’t dare stand up to the Labour Party and its media outriders over the last few years. And yet again today. Labour will win. And will be even worse. What follows Labour goodness only knows.

    Wow, that's a new one. The Tory government is abject because it's been intimidated by the fearsome Labour Party and the Mirror. Worth a go, I guess.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Look at all the places that are experiencing mass emigration. Rural France, most of Spain, the small towns of the Red Wall. More exotic ones that celebrity flintknappers get paid to visit.

    They're dismal and lifeless, because the people who go are the people with life. And then the towns die. We really don't want emigration.

    But given that the country has been run as a preservationist theme park with a banking sector to pay the bills, it's going to be hard to avoid.
    Yes, the UK is basically an enormous Health System funded by financial services

    It's not even a particularly good Health System, and now the funds are drying up

    I have never been so pessimistic for the future of the UK. I don't know how we fix this, I cannot see any politicians with any ideas. Labour are as clueless as the Tories

    I'm thinking of renting a dinghy and heading for Albania, I hear prospects are better there
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    nova said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Only about half as densely populated as Rwanda apparently...
    The UK is the 52nd most densely populated nation out of 234

    https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/countries-by-density
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,644
    nico679 said:

    So a majority of American voters decided to give the GOP two years with a house majority in which they’ll spend their time not trying to help the country but the first thing they’ve decided to do is to investigate Hunter Biden and go after Jo Biden for some offences that they haven’t made up yet .

    The GOP are a cancer on the USA .

    Well, there are a score of GOP winners who won't support that because they are in swing districts, and a few dozen who won't support the House majority unless it does very conservative things, so I'd hardly say there is a very stable majority at all, right now.
  • HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    I think he's accurately reflecting what a lot of the Conservative base thinks. Electorally, "no development in Ourtown, we're full up" is pure catnip.

    But everyone says it, so it becomes "no development anywhere".

    Knowingly or not, Conservative policy has tied itself to the worst instincts of some terrible people.
  • Neighbours: Amazon to revive TV soap, four months after finale
    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-63660032

    Famously used by John Smith to highlight differences between Mrs Thatcher and her Chancellor, Nigel Lawson.

    In what respect? Maggie was Madge and Nige was Harold??

    As Neighbours ends recalling when late John Smith used soap’s theme song to expose Tory tension between a Prime Minister & Chancellor. Sounds familiar but back in 1989 it was Margaret Thatcher vs Nigel Lawson who quit soon after Smith urged him to decide “to jump or be pushed”.
    (Some familiar faces in the photo.)
    https://twitter.com/DwTenterden/status/1553376195449946113

    Read it for yourself in Hansard.
    https://hansard.parliament.uk/Commons/1989-06-07/debates/8100e88d-9ac3-4fee-9cdc-e9b9edcf2c45/GovernmentEconomicPolicy

    Nigel Lawson resigned a few months later, on the same day as Alan Walters, who had been Mrs Thatcher's personal economics adviser.


    Lol! A truly tortured reference, appreciated only by the hardcore fans of the show (which the late great Smith apparently was!!)

    Appreciated by Conservative MPs struggling to suppress their laughter. Neighbours was massive back in the day, right up there with Corrie and Eastenders with around 18 million viewers, and even those who did not watch might have caught the closing credits as they waited for the news.
  • Charts.

    Genuinely extraordinary how many people don't realise or accept that poverty is (much) higher among those of working age than pensioners

    https://twitter.com/rcolvile/status/1593307247521701892

    Pensioners should have their winter fuel allowances removed.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    kinabalu said:

    Nigelb said:

    Should be fun.
    I hear Giuliani's looking for a new gig.

    Kari Lake declines to concede, says she’s assembling legal team
    https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/3739934-kari-lake-declines-to-concede-says-shes-assembling-legal-team/

    Is there a Four Seasons in Arizona ?

    By no means the biggest problem with him but apparently he farts more or less continually.
    What a rancid...mind he has.
  • nico679nico679 Posts: 6,239
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
    It’s not a job many would like to do . And you have to want to help people . Given the state of some who are effectively unemployable I wouldn’t trust them to look after my budgie let alone an elderly family member .
  • Great design!

    However, on this side of Atlantic (and Pacific) most folks would conclude, this must be a really sick advert for a holiday-season slasher flick.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    edited November 2022

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    There will always be young and successful people who want to come to London, including from around the world. Though we do need to ensure the top tax rate doesn't rise too high yes so that it puts them off and leads to a brain drain like the 1970s
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
    If they are still unemployed when theres so many vacancies many of them may well be unemployable.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    There will always be young and successful people who want to come to London, including from around the world. Though we do need to ensure the top tax rate doesn't rise too high yes so that it puts them off and leads to a brain drain like the 1970s
    You were welcoming emigration not immigration
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    edited November 2022
    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Big picture: the Tories can’t touch wealthy pensioners since that’s their remaining support base. Reliable votes from that demographic is the difference between surviving with 150 MPs and suffering a Canadian style wipeout.

    As an innocent young councillor I never really appreciated the extent to which both Tories and Labour see the world (or at least, the country) in terms of ‘our people’ and ‘their people’. Until we got involved with balance of power and eventually potential coalitions. But they really do. The voting system encourages (indeed, pretty much requires) that they behave that way, but it’s truly not in the national interest.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    nico679 said:

    So a majority of American voters decided to give the GOP two years with a house majority in which they’ll spend their time not trying to help the country but the first thing they’ve decided to do is to investigate Hunter Biden and go after Jo Biden for some offences that they haven’t made up yet .

    The GOP are a cancer on the USA .

    Americans like divided government and most of the time the opposition party wins at least 1 chamber of Congress in the midterms to keep the governing party in the White House in check and ensure neither party gets all its own way
  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 119,370
    edited November 2022
    If I was in Qatar, for the first time in my life, as a good Muslim boy I'd be tempted to have a beer.

    Only three days before kick-off, the Qatari hosts were putting pressure on Fifa to perform a complete U-turn on the beer policy at the World Cup and stop selling Budweiser at the eight World Cup stadiums altogether.

    Budweiser is one of Fifa’s biggest sponsors. It remains unclear whether football fans will be allowed to buy any beer at the games. If Budweiser is not allowed either to sell beer or to have any visibility at the games, then Fifa will be in breach of a multi-million dollar contract.

    At present, the only place that it is certain that beer will be available to all football fans is in the Doha fan parks.

    Considerable pressure has come to bear on Fifa from the Qatar 2022 organisers about the availability of beer at the stadiums. It is understood that this has come at the insistence of the Qatari royal family.

    Fifa has already made one concession this week to Qatar 2022 on the availability of Budweiser at the stadiums. Qatar 2022 insisted that the Budweiser concession stands were too obtrusive and had them moved into positions where they would receive less visibility.

    It is highly unusual for changes like this to be made to an agreement with a sponsor so close to the start of a big event. However, it now appears that Qatar 2022 wishes to push even further.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-cup-qataris-want-complete-stadium-beer-ban-f5bcjprqh
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819
    If I was under 30 I would get the fuck out, now
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    edited November 2022
    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    As long as they keep the pensioner vote the Tories won't go extinct.

    The young under 35s almost always vote Labour anyway, the middle aged may put Labour in office but then Labour will face the blame for economic problems after that.

    Virtually every western nation did long lockdowns except Sweden and a few US states like Florida
  • Sandpit said:

    The current iteration of the Tory Party needs to FOAD.


    You voted for Sunak, did you not?
    As the least worst option, your candidate fucked up the economy for a generation, and will keep the party out for a similar generation.

    Truss supporters, like Brexit supporters, really should reflect on the unflushable turds they've given the country.
    No, the economic turds were built up by your mate the Chancellor from 2020 to 2022 and his predecessors over the 10 years before that. The fact that with one quick squeeze of his bowels his successor finally blocked the toilet for 3 weeks this Autumn is neither here nor there.

    Truss and Kwarteng enacted virtually no measures of lasting effect apart from the NI reduction, which is just about the only thing of their legacy to survive after today. What they did do though was to remove the rose tinted spectacles from the markets' eyes, so that they're finally taking a more critical look and recognising the UK economy as the basket case it's become over the long term.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    Did Tugendhat really stand to become the PM knowing that he was about to be hit with a driving ban? *brave*.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940

    If I was in Qatar, for the first time in my life, as a good Muslim boy I'd be tempted to have a beer.

    Only three days before kick-off, the Qatari hosts were putting pressure on Fifa to perform a complete U-turn on the beer policy at the World Cup and stop selling Budweiser at the eight World Cup stadiums altogether.

    Budweiser is one of Fifa’s biggest sponsors. It remains unclear whether football fans will be allowed to buy any beer at the games. If Budweiser is not allowed either to sell beer or to have any visibility at the games, then Fifa will be in breach of a multi-million dollar contract.

    At present, the only place that it is certain that beer will be available to all football fans is in the Doha fan parks.

    Considerable pressure has come to bear on Fifa from the Qatar 2022 organisers about the availability of beer at the stadiums. It is understood that this has come at the insistence of the Qatari royal family.

    Fifa has already made one concession this week to Qatar 2022 on the availability of Budweiser at the stadiums. Qatar 2022 insisted that the Budweiser concession stands were too obtrusive and had them moved into positions where they would receive less visibility.

    It is highly unusual for changes like this to be made to an agreement with a sponsor so close to the start of a big event. However, it now appears that Qatar 2022 wishes to push even further.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-cup-qataris-want-complete-stadium-beer-ban-f5bcjprqh

    Fifa has been very firm in the past on making sure hosts have to permit this sort of thing regardless of the regular local laws.

    I also seem to recall they've pushed in the past for very quick, harsh justice for anyone causing a problem during a tournament, which is probably less of an imposition.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 10,701

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Look at all the places that are experiencing mass emigration. Rural France, most of Spain, the small towns of the Red Wall. More exotic ones that celebrity flintknappers get paid to visit.

    They're dismal and lifeless, because the people who go are the people with life. And then the towns die. We really don't want emigration.

    But given that the country has been run as a preservationist theme park with a banking sector to pay the bills, it's going to be hard to avoid.
    I think you make some really good and thought provoking points here. An outstanding post.
  • IanB2 said:

    Did Tugendhat really stand to become the PM knowing that he was about to be hit with a driving ban? *brave*.

    Especially as the reason for the election was law breaking in #10.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    edited November 2022
    Leon said:

    If I was under 30 I would get the fuck out, now

    Well they can't automatically go to the EU now no free movement unless they already have sufficient capital or are very highly skilled, same applies for going to the US, Canada, Australia and Singapore and other developed nations. So only a few can leave but nothing wrong with young Brits seeing the world.

    They will leave as Labour voters mainly, if they come back they might be wealthier and potential Tories
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    There will always be young and successful people who want to come to London, including from around the world. Though we do need to ensure the top tax rate doesn't rise too high yes so that it puts them off and leads to a brain drain like the 1970s
    You were welcoming emigration not immigration
    Some emigration given how densely populated we are and demand for housing, public services etc yes no bad thing
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    But it will be the rich emigrating. The higher rate taxpayers. And the young and the educated

    We are comprehensively shagged, and the Tories did it. Lockdowns 2 and 3 were catastrophically stupid and have bankrupted us

    You can say Labour would have been worse - they wanted even longer lockdowns - but it is irrelevant. The Tories own this. I can foresee them going extinct
    Look at all the places that are experiencing mass emigration. Rural France, most of Spain, the small towns of the Red Wall. More exotic ones that celebrity flintknappers get paid to visit.

    They're dismal and lifeless, because the people who go are the people with life. And then the towns die. We really don't want emigration.

    But given that the country has been run as a preservationist theme park with a banking sector to pay the bills, it's going to be hard to avoid.
    Yes, the UK is basically an enormous Health System funded by financial services

    It's not even a particularly good Health System, and now the funds are drying up

    I have never been so pessimistic for the future of the UK. I don't know how we fix this, I cannot see any politicians with any ideas. Labour are as clueless as the Tories

    I'm thinking of renting a dinghy and heading for Albania, I hear prospects are better there
    Maybe you should go have a quiet reflection and consider whether each of the votes you have cast over the past decade have helped make things worse.
  • Leon said:

    If I was under 30 I would get the fuck out, now

    Thanks to people like you they cannot get the fuck out to large parts of Europe.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    If I was under 30 I would get the fuck out, now

    Well they can't automatically go to the EU now no free movement unless they already have sufficient capital or are very highly skilled, same applies for going to the US, Canada, Australia and Singapore and other developed nations. So only a few can leave but nothing wrong with young Brits seeing the world.

    They will leave as Labour voters mainly, if they come back they might be wealthier and potential Tories
    Great stuff, HY. So Brexit has f****d the country but the consolation is that it makes it more difficult for people to leave?

    Why not just wall us all in and be done with it?
  • IanB2 said:

    Did Tugendhat really stand to become the PM knowing that he was about to be hit with a driving ban? *brave*.

    Especially as the reason for the election was law breaking in #10.
    Still pisses me off that you can get points/bans/fine for holding a phone whilst driving but it is fine if you drive holding a lit cigarette.
  • HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    There will always be young and successful people who want to come to London, including from around the world. Though we do need to ensure the top tax rate doesn't rise too high yes so that it puts them off and leads to a brain drain like the 1970s
    You were welcoming emigration not immigration
    Some emigration given how densely populated we are and demand for housing, public services etc yes no bad thing
    You have not understood that the ones likely to emigrate are those we really need to stay
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
    If they are still unemployed when theres so many vacancies many of them may well be unemployable.
    Nobody is completely unemployable unless severely disabled or a dangerous criminal in prison, certainly not to do basic social care like helping pensioners feed themselves, go to the toilet, get out of bed etc
  • EPGEPG Posts: 6,644
    NIESR is running with the deluded line that the Chancellor should have spent more on welfare without weakening medium-term public finances, even though this would probably push the near-term deficit above Kwarteng levels.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 54,412
    kle4 said:

    If I was in Qatar, for the first time in my life, as a good Muslim boy I'd be tempted to have a beer.

    Only three days before kick-off, the Qatari hosts were putting pressure on Fifa to perform a complete U-turn on the beer policy at the World Cup and stop selling Budweiser at the eight World Cup stadiums altogether.

    Budweiser is one of Fifa’s biggest sponsors. It remains unclear whether football fans will be allowed to buy any beer at the games. If Budweiser is not allowed either to sell beer or to have any visibility at the games, then Fifa will be in breach of a multi-million dollar contract.

    At present, the only place that it is certain that beer will be available to all football fans is in the Doha fan parks.

    Considerable pressure has come to bear on Fifa from the Qatar 2022 organisers about the availability of beer at the stadiums. It is understood that this has come at the insistence of the Qatari royal family.

    Fifa has already made one concession this week to Qatar 2022 on the availability of Budweiser at the stadiums. Qatar 2022 insisted that the Budweiser concession stands were too obtrusive and had them moved into positions where they would receive less visibility.

    It is highly unusual for changes like this to be made to an agreement with a sponsor so close to the start of a big event. However, it now appears that Qatar 2022 wishes to push even further.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-cup-qataris-want-complete-stadium-beer-ban-f5bcjprqh

    Fifa has been very firm in the past on making sure hosts have to permit this sort of thing regardless of the regular local laws.

    I also seem to recall they've pushed in the past for very quick, harsh justice for anyone causing a problem during a tournament, which is probably less of an imposition.
    There’s already an awful lot of football fans turned up in Dubai. Very different from the usual middle-class tourists heading for the beach resorts.

    Watching the interaction between fans and police, in countries where public drunkenness is considered a serious offence, is going to be the best sport of the next few weeks.
  • If I was in Qatar, for the first time in my life, as a good Muslim boy I'd be tempted to have a beer.

    Only three days before kick-off, the Qatari hosts were putting pressure on Fifa to perform a complete U-turn on the beer policy at the World Cup and stop selling Budweiser at the eight World Cup stadiums altogether.

    Budweiser is one of Fifa’s biggest sponsors. It remains unclear whether football fans will be allowed to buy any beer at the games. If Budweiser is not allowed either to sell beer or to have any visibility at the games, then Fifa will be in breach of a multi-million dollar contract.

    At present, the only place that it is certain that beer will be available to all football fans is in the Doha fan parks.

    Considerable pressure has come to bear on Fifa from the Qatar 2022 organisers about the availability of beer at the stadiums. It is understood that this has come at the insistence of the Qatari royal family.

    Fifa has already made one concession this week to Qatar 2022 on the availability of Budweiser at the stadiums. Qatar 2022 insisted that the Budweiser concession stands were too obtrusive and had them moved into positions where they would receive less visibility.

    It is highly unusual for changes like this to be made to an agreement with a sponsor so close to the start of a big event. However, it now appears that Qatar 2022 wishes to push even further.


    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/world-cup-qataris-want-complete-stadium-beer-ban-f5bcjprqh

    Carrie "Hatchet" Nation would approve of this message.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carrie_Nation

  • HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
    If they are still unemployed when theres so many vacancies many of them may well be unemployable.
    Nobody is completely unemployable unless severely disabled or a dangerous criminal in prison, certainly not to do basic social care like helping pensioners feed themselves, go to the toilet, get out of bed etc
    You haven't a clue
  • pingping Posts: 3,805

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. I'd say pretty much what he had to do.

    I'm disappointed that HS2 NE is still deleted, and that the Housing Market is left unreformed.

    A lot of fiscal drag. Good to see some reform of top rate taxes. Hopefully the £100-£125k marginal rate will be next.

    I did not hear anything on defence spending. Aha - I see 2% GDP will be maintained. That may be code for an effective reduction, depending how it is counted.

    I wonder if a typical energy bill will be anywhere near pro-rata £3000 by the time we get to April.

    Brave, but sensible, to go for a revaluation for business rates. A time bomb? Last time it was like stuck pigs squealing to heaven for those not paying wrt their disproportionate property price increases.

    Sensible to raise Min Wage (I think to the highest net in Western Europe), and benefits / basic pensions by inflation rate.

    Local Council finances look to be under threat. I missed whether these would be restricted to +5% on Council Tax this year. Those are also crying out for a re-valuation or reform.

    To me (others will differ) Reeves' speech was a vacuum - about 95% pre-recorded rhetoric.

    Big suspicion is, what good news there is got announced in speech, first impressions matter so they are shaping the first impressions. More controversial things like the Defence Budget cut you flagged, hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly.
    On Topic. And as we were saying “what good news there is got announced in speech, controversial things hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly”

    And so it begins


    This was in the March Budget too (it's a bigger increase now because it's linked to RPI which is higher than previously forecast but it's not a change in policy, it was in there already).
    About time too. There are finite amounts of fossil fuels in the ground, and burning them is destroying our environment, so anything that will dissuade their use and encourage the use of cleaner alternatives is to be commended. And it brings in a few bob too.
    You're thinking too short term. Coal, oil and gas are - so long as the sun keeps shining - all renewable sources.
    I don't think that's right. I think all the fossil fuel deposits were laid down before the more recent evolution of fungi and bacteria that would now break down organic deposits before they could be converted to fossil fuels.
    Fascinating.

    That had never occurred to me.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 54,819

    Sandpit said:

    The current iteration of the Tory Party needs to FOAD.


    You voted for Sunak, did you not?
    As the least worst option, your candidate fucked up the economy for a generation, and will keep the party out for a similar generation.

    Truss supporters, like Brexit supporters, really should reflect on the unflushable turds they've given the country.
    No, the economic turds were built up by your mate the Chancellor from 2020 to 2022 and his predecessors over the 10 years before that. The fact that with one quick squeeze of his bowels his successor finally blocked the toilet for 3 weeks this Autumn is neither here nor there.

    Truss and Kwarteng enacted virtually no measures of lasting effect apart from the NI reduction, which is just about the only thing of their legacy to survive after today. What they did do though was to remove the rose tinted spectacles from the markets' eyes, so that they're finally taking a more critical look and recognising the UK economy as the basket case it's become over the long term.
    The UK economy has been a Ponzi scheme for 20 years. Relying on ever greater amounts of immigration (which led to perpetually high property prices) and fat taxes from the City. This was completely unsustainable because

    1. All that immigration has deeply unpleasant or radical or contradictory consequences. Brexit was just one of them

    2. High property prices are just another way to fuck the young, who then consider voting Corbyn, SNP, etc

    3. The taxes from the City took a big hit from the GFC and yada yada yada

    And now the markets have realised this and Ouch

    We will no doubt survive, and eventually find a new economic model. But the pain of the necessary reset is going to be intense
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,431
    edited November 2022

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    HYUFD said:

    Leon said:

    IanB2 said:

    @DavidHerdson: There's a very large political market now which will view positively closer relations with the EU.

    While I understand Labour not wanting to reopen that can of worms too enthusiastically, when the cost-of-living should be centre stage, the two are linked.

    As I said earlier, I can easily see Starmer selling membership of the CU/SM on the back of these horrendous predictions

    He can say Freedom of Movement won't be an issue because everyone will be emigrating rather than immigrating
    Given we are one of the most densely populated nations in the world a bit of net emigration may not necessarily be a bad thing in terms of reducing pressure on public services and for housing
    Unfortunately the people most likely to emigrate are the young - the people we need to help support & care for an ageing population.
    Not just the young but the successful and those with a dream

    Again @HYUFD welcoming emigration from the UK misjudges just who they would be and the loss to the UK
    There will always be young and successful people who want to come to London, including from around the world. Though we do need to ensure the top tax rate doesn't rise too high yes so that it puts them off and leads to a brain drain like the 1970s
    You were welcoming emigration not immigration
    Some emigration given how densely populated we are and demand for housing, public services etc yes no bad thing
    You have not understood that the ones likely to emigrate are those we really need to stay
    I have already said I would not raise tax on the highest earners too high to keep most of the highest skilled but some under 35s deciding to emigrate given they are the ones most demanding new housing, especially in London and the Home Counties, is no bad thing. Plenty more room for them in Canada or Australia for example as your family has discovered
  • MonkeysMonkeys Posts: 757
    HYUFD said:

    kle4 said:

    HYUFD said:

    nico679 said:

    Grannie and grandad can clean their own arse ! Having told social care workers from the EU to go fxck themselves they should realize actions have consequences.

    There are still 1.38 million UK unemployed most of whom are quite capable of doing basic social care work like that
    If they are still unemployed when theres so many vacancies many of them may well be unemployable.
    Nobody is completely unemployable unless severely disabled or a dangerous criminal in prison, certainly not to do basic social care like helping pensioners feed themselves, go to the toilet, get out of bed etc
    It takes a certain sort of person to do that job well. The wrong person can make it disrespectful for the cared-for person.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 49,810
    edited November 2022

    pigeon said:

    Budget summary: still ramping taxes on wages not property, still no sign of an end to the triple lock (the two matters being heavily connected of course: most pensioners are also mortgage-free owner occupiers.) The overall net transfer of what's left of the nation's wealth to the rich and the old continues almost unhindered.

    The rest of it's just so much window dressing to make you think that the Government cares about the poor and public services. The reality, of course, is all that they care about is bleeding workers white so that the rich and the retired (i.e. Tory donors and the core vote) can be spared the inconvenience of having to cough up their fair share.

    When the next election comes around, judge each manifesto on two factors: is there a commitment to tax incomes less and assets more? And is there a commitment to stop funnelling an ever increasing share of national income into the pockets of pensioners? That'll be quite enough to tell you whether the parties are actually interested in bringing about positive social change, or if they're just competing to be the least incompetent managers of continuing decline.

    Starmer and labour tried to bounce the conservatives into the triple lock last week and are entirely signed up to it

    Starmer is also against rejoining the EU and of course the major tax and cuts come into the next government, so unless he comes up with something more radical than presently declared then as many have said there is hardly any difference between the parties and todays statement could just as easily been delivered by Rachel Reeves
    The way that you manage to turn every single decision that the Tory government makes into a problem for Labour is truly impressive. Kudos.
    His smearing of Starmer this morning for the budget leaks was magnificent and unspoofable.
    It’s just psychological displacement. Big_G is aghast at the stinking mess that his favoured Tories have delivered us directly into, but needs to find a way to shift the blame onto the opposition so that, come the next election, he can return to his lifetime’s voting behaviour.

    On the upside, any aspiring PhD students on this site looking for a case study as to why the opposition often leads the polls midterm yet sees a government eventually re-elected could do a lot worse than spend an hour interviewing Big_G.
  • For *Battle for the Soul*, Nancy Pelosi told me that when the 2020 election was called for Biden (and Trump lost), one of her children texted her:

    “Live your life so when you lose your job, people are not dancing in the streets all over the world.”


    https://twitter.com/IsaacDovere/status/1593314696643297280
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 42,271
    ping said:

    rcs1000 said:

    MattW said:

    Hmmm. I'd say pretty much what he had to do.

    I'm disappointed that HS2 NE is still deleted, and that the Housing Market is left unreformed.

    A lot of fiscal drag. Good to see some reform of top rate taxes. Hopefully the £100-£125k marginal rate will be next.

    I did not hear anything on defence spending. Aha - I see 2% GDP will be maintained. That may be code for an effective reduction, depending how it is counted.

    I wonder if a typical energy bill will be anywhere near pro-rata £3000 by the time we get to April.

    Brave, but sensible, to go for a revaluation for business rates. A time bomb? Last time it was like stuck pigs squealing to heaven for those not paying wrt their disproportionate property price increases.

    Sensible to raise Min Wage (I think to the highest net in Western Europe), and benefits / basic pensions by inflation rate.

    Local Council finances look to be under threat. I missed whether these would be restricted to +5% on Council Tax this year. Those are also crying out for a re-valuation or reform.

    To me (others will differ) Reeves' speech was a vacuum - about 95% pre-recorded rhetoric.

    Big suspicion is, what good news there is got announced in speech, first impressions matter so they are shaping the first impressions. More controversial things like the Defence Budget cut you flagged, hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly.
    On Topic. And as we were saying “what good news there is got announced in speech, controversial things hidden away in the budget wording, or not even clearly there, it needs someone to ask the right question to have the way forward explained publicly”

    And so it begins


    This was in the March Budget too (it's a bigger increase now because it's linked to RPI which is higher than previously forecast but it's not a change in policy, it was in there already).
    About time too. There are finite amounts of fossil fuels in the ground, and burning them is destroying our environment, so anything that will dissuade their use and encourage the use of cleaner alternatives is to be commended. And it brings in a few bob too.
    You're thinking too short term. Coal, oil and gas are - so long as the sun keeps shining - all renewable sources.
    I don't think that's right. I think all the fossil fuel deposits were laid down before the more recent evolution of fungi and bacteria that would now break down organic deposits before they could be converted to fossil fuels.
    Fascinating.

    That had never occurred to me.
    I don't know about gas and oil, but i had heard that for coal: lignite evolved in plants, but it took millions of years for bacteria to evolve to easily and quickly break it down. Hence there was a period when it was very easy got coal deposits to form.

    https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth
  • Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 3,194
    edited November 2022

    IanB2 said:

    Did Tugendhat really stand to become the PM knowing that he was about to be hit with a driving ban? *brave*.

    Especially as the reason for the election was law breaking in #10.
    Still pisses me off that you can get points/bans/fine for holding a phone whilst driving but it is fine if you drive holding a lit cigarette.
    Or listening to 'music' so loud you're oblivious to your surroundings. (But not vice versa, unfortunately)
This discussion has been closed.