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
Immigration isn't a Ponzi scheme, it's simply a natural consequence of different demographics and different economic situations in different parts of the world and the technology existing to make migration relatively cheap. It has always been like this - we act like it's a new thing because the phenomenon of other people coming to the UK is relatively recent (not that recent of course, large scale immigration started soon after ww2, more than 70 years ago) but we were exporting large numbers of people to the rest of the world from the 17th century onwards. When Britons emigrated to the Americas or Australia or Africa was that a Ponzi scheme? Arguably the entire human civilisation, which is devouring the world's resources at an unsustainable pace, is a Ponzi scheme, but there's nothing especially unsustainable about post war immigration patterns in the UK. People might not like it, of course, that's an entirely different question.
Total bollocks
Immigration into the UK in recent decades has been completely unprecedented in scale and proportion
1 in 6 people in the UK is now foreign born. This has consequences. And one of them was Brexit. It’s not why I voted for it, but many did. As Remainers keep reminding us. And yet it was the Remainers that opened the borders
Here's a list of foreign born people I know.
My wife's parents (father worked for decades as a doctor in the NHS) My wife's brothers (both doctors, one a GP in a poor part of Leeds, the other looks after sick newborns) My brother's partner Two of my children My boss (started a multi billion dollar hedge fund, employs a lot of people in the UK, is a major philanthropist) Most of my colleagues Loads of the parents I know from school Loads of my neighbours Loads of my friends
Meanwhile, I have lived abroad in two different countries for eight years altogether.
I just don't see what the problem is with people moving about. It's the world we live in. If we didn't want people moving here we shouldn't have colonised half the world, taught them all English and invented the jet engine.
"I'm sorry Mr. Working Class Lad from a Council Estate. If you didn't want unaffordable housing prices from population growth, your pay and conditions undercut from poor immigrants, and a big social divide in your town from a new community that sticks to itself, you should have intervened 100 years before your birth with the upper middle class actions in Asia."
Mr WCL would be paying Belgian tax rates if it weren't for immigrant workers propping up the British pensioner regime.
Depends on the immigrant group. Indian doctors, German engineers and French bankers, for sure. But poor immigrants are net costs to the taxpayer over a lifetime. That's why people want control over immigration, so they can let in the net adds and filter the rest. Big business, on the other hand, wants as much cheap labour as possible.
Well, almost everyone is a net cost to the taxpayer over a lifetime, including the average doctor, engineer and banker, depending on how many kids they have. (Albeit PB comments seems to contain a disproportionate share of six-figure folks.)
That's not true. Government spending per person is about 10k. You have to be earning about 40k a year to pay that much in income tax. Of course there will be years you don't pay as much tax post retirement, and there are other taxes like NI and VAT, but the overall number comes out around a similar point.
From a purely public finance perspective, you want people to emigrate from the UK in their early to mid 60s.
Unfortunately, I don’t understand at least half of the words that they’re using. But I think it disagrees with @LostPassword
Me being an idiot and not studying any science beyond GCSE means that I have absolutely no idea who is right. But I do feel like I’m learning something. Maybe.
Such a shame when such an attractive theory is destroyed by evidence!
One of my friends used to have the maxim that 10 weeks in the lab saves an hour in the library (he much preferred lab work, to checking the literature). On fossil fuels I think the jury is still out. I am intrigued by the idea of all the things that need to go right for a species to reach the state of development we have now, and fossil fuels or equivalent energy source is a prerequisite.
Unfortunately, I don’t understand at least half of the words that they’re using. But I think it disagrees with @LostPassword
Me being an idiot and not studying any science beyond GCSE means that I have absolutely no idea who is right. But I do feel like I’m learning something. Maybe.
Such a shame when such an attractive theory is destroyed by evidence!
Lol. I’m still, basically, nonethewiser.
Thanks for the input, though.
I’ve learned something. Not quite sure what, but something!
Unfortunately, I don’t understand at least half of the words that they’re using. But I think it disagrees with @LostPassword
Me being an idiot and not studying any science beyond GCSE means that I have absolutely no idea who is right. But I do feel like I’m learning something. Maybe.
Such a shame when such an attractive theory is destroyed by evidence!
The paper is ridiculous. Coal production in the US peaked in 2008, not in the "Paleozoic" period (whenever that is).
Unfortunately, I don’t understand at least half of the words that they’re using. But I think it disagrees with @LostPassword
Me being an idiot and not studying any science beyond GCSE means that I have absolutely no idea who is right. But I do feel like I’m learning something. Maybe.
Such a shame when such an attractive theory is destroyed by evidence!
The paper is ridiculous. Coal production in the US peaked in 2008, not in the "Paleozoic" period (whenever that is).
Errrr ....
Coal *extraction* peaked in 2008; coal *production* peaked in the Carboniferous.
In Washington state, most adults have driver's licenses, and those who don't drive can get "personal ID cards", which have pictures, addresses, and physical descriptions, like the licenses. There is an upgrade available for air travel, which requires you to have some additional proof that you actually live where you say you live.
Not having a license or or at least an ID card makes many ordinary transactions difficult, or even impossible. Recently, for example, in my area, the rules changed and you need to show one to buy alcoholic drinks. (I had almost forgotten how to show an ID, since it had been so long since I was last asked.)
(For the record: Requiring a photo ID for voting is quite popular with the public. I don't think it would do much to reduce vote fraud. But, in some places, it might help poor people get more integrated with the legal economy.)
Looked like he was implying some pollsters were not honest, from the posts leading up to the banning. Not wise.
Ah, OK. Yes that's a clear banning offence
Hope he returns tho. I like his waspish outlook, even if he oversteps when pissed as a duke
God, I don't. The nastiest most personal and unpleasant poster on here, IMHO, and a bully.
He should have been permanently banned long ago.
He can be punchy and aggressive, and needs to be more restrained, especially after the lagershed. However, he is one of the few serious posters on here who is genuinely open-minded. You never quite know how he will approach an issue, and it is often a fresh perspective, and intelligent
Too many people on here are predictable and doctrinaire, and that dulls the site down
They should close all ticket stations on the Tube as paper tickets are even stupider and equally as pointless as Oysters. I mean, it’s not even possible to pay cash on a bus (rightly).
Strangely. I see folk paying cash every day.
Not down here you don’t. Buses have been cashless for years.
Unfortunately, I don’t understand at least half of the words that they’re using. But I think it disagrees with @LostPassword
Me being an idiot and not studying any science beyond GCSE means that I have absolutely no idea who is right. But I do feel like I’m learning something. Maybe.
Such a shame when such an attractive theory is destroyed by evidence!
The paper is ridiculous. Coal production in the US peaked in 2008, not in the "Paleozoic" period (whenever that is).
Errrr ....
Coal *extraction* peaked in 2008; coal *production* peaked in the Carboniferous.
Looked like he was implying some pollsters were not honest, from the posts leading up to the banning. Not wise.
Ah, OK. Yes that's a clear banning offence
Hope he returns tho. I like his waspish outlook, even if he oversteps when pissed as a duke
God, I don't. The nastiest most personal and unpleasant poster on here, IMHO, and a bully.
He should have been permanently banned long ago.
He can be punchy and aggressive, and needs to be more restrained, especially after the lagershed. However, he is one of the few serious posters on here who is genuinely open-minded. You never quite know how he will approach an issue, and it is often a fresh perspective, and intelligent
Too many people on here are predictable and doctrinaire, and that dulls the site down
On balance, an asset
I’d argue not as intelligent as he thinks he is. He impugned my reputation as a scientist over the thorny issue of solar panels in fields, and whether any useful crop can grow. As a scientist I tend not to assume the obvious answer, but he decided that nothing could grow as grass needs all the light, wrongly, as it turns out. But he does add colour, even if it goes to far sometimes.
Looked like he was implying some pollsters were not honest, from the posts leading up to the banning. Not wise.
Ah, OK. Yes that's a clear banning offence
Hope he returns tho. I like his waspish outlook, even if he oversteps when pissed as a duke
God, I don't. The nastiest most personal and unpleasant poster on here, IMHO, and a bully.
He should have been permanently banned long ago.
He can be punchy and aggressive, and needs to be more restrained, especially after the lagershed. However, he is one of the few serious posters on here who is genuinely open-minded. You never quite know how he will approach an issue, and it is often a fresh perspective, and intelligent
Too many people on here are predictable and doctrinaire, and that dulls the site down
On balance, an asset
I don't agree at all, I think he just likes the freedom to personally attack people from all angles for his own entertainment.
That's not "clever". We could all do it if we wanted to do so.
There are far better posters on here who perform the role of devil's advocate with much more skill and effectiveness.
Interesting website - try the quiz! I scored 2 and 3 on my two attempts. The theme may be of general interest to us here... https://www.wearepolesapart.com/
Having tried the quiz (once - not wasting my time again) I think that was rather obvious. Pick some voters who have voted against the natural vote for their overall views and then amaze (!) people trying to guess how they voted or would vote. A bit like putting the spot the ball ball in the wrong place on purpose.
Interesting website - try the quiz! I scored 2 and 3 on my two attempts. The theme may be of general interest to us here... https://www.wearepolesapart.com/
Having tried the quiz (once - not wasting my time again) I think that was rather obvious. Pick some voters who have voted against the natural vote for their overall views and then amaze (!) people trying to guess how they voted or would vote. A bit like putting the spot the ball ball in the wrong place on purpose.
I scored a big fat zero. I got the Green and Lib Dem the wrong way around. Of course we forget the significance of tactical voting.
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
Immigration isn't a Ponzi scheme, it's simply a natural consequence of different demographics and different economic situations in different parts of the world and the technology existing to make migration relatively cheap. It has always been like this - we act like it's a new thing because the phenomenon of other people coming to the UK is relatively recent (not that recent of course, large scale immigration started soon after ww2, more than 70 years ago) but we were exporting large numbers of people to the rest of the world from the 17th century onwards. When Britons emigrated to the Americas or Australia or Africa was that a Ponzi scheme? Arguably the entire human civilisation, which is devouring the world's resources at an unsustainable pace, is a Ponzi scheme, but there's nothing especially unsustainable about post war immigration patterns in the UK. People might not like it, of course, that's an entirely different question.
Total bollocks
Immigration into the UK in recent decades has been completely unprecedented in scale and proportion
1 in 6 people in the UK is now foreign born. This has consequences. And one of them was Brexit. It’s not why I voted for it, but many did. As Remainers keep reminding us. And yet it was the Remainers that opened the borders
Here's a list of foreign born people I know.
My wife's parents (father worked for decades as a doctor in the NHS) My wife's brothers (both doctors, one a GP in a poor part of Leeds, the other looks after sick newborns) My brother's partner Two of my children My boss (started a multi billion dollar hedge fund, employs a lot of people in the UK, is a major philanthropist) Most of my colleagues Loads of the parents I know from school Loads of my neighbours Loads of my friends
Meanwhile, I have lived abroad in two different countries for eight years altogether.
I just don't see what the problem is with people moving about. It's the world we live in. If we didn't want people moving here we shouldn't have colonised half the world, taught them all English and invented the jet engine.
Sweden didn't colonise much, and they've got plenty of immigrants.
Apart from half of what is now England, although it was a fair time ago…
The Swedelaw?
Ran as far as Gretna. After that was the law of the turnip.
One must remember that “Denmark” during the Danelaw period included big chunks of what is nowadays Sweden, Norway and Germany.
The “Danes” (Norse is more accurate) we’re all over the place, including Normandy: they’d only recently adopted French before conquering England.
So, Swedelaw is not wholly innacurate.
As for “the Swedes didn’t colonise much”, er… apart from Ukraine, Russia, Finland, the Baltics and northern Germany, no, not much.
It does read like an attempt to disproportionately skew the vote toward older people, which is a disgrace.
I have two thoughts on this. (1) Ludicrous that one form of Oyster card is valid and one not. Even if it’s not deliberately done to favour older voters, it sure gives that impression. (2) What’s an Oyster card?*
* Ok, I know what one is, but, like the vast majority of the country, don’t live in fecking London, you self obsessed wankers… *
NOBODY USES OYSTER CARDS IN LONDON, even if they live in London.
I do.
Me too. I vaguely think that paying by bank card diverts some of the revenue from TfL to the bank. But I agree with David's point - it's ridiculous and clearly biased to the elderly to allow cards for the elderly but not for the young.
So what the budget consensus? I though Reeves did well.
She comes across like she knows her stuff, whether she does or not. Hunt is a solid professional, but there's only so much he could do on damage control mode.
It does read like an attempt to disproportionately skew the vote toward older people, which is a disgrace.
I have two thoughts on this. (1) Ludicrous that one form of Oyster card is valid and one not. Even if it’s not deliberately done to favour older voters, it sure gives that impression. (2) What’s an Oyster card?*
* Ok, I know what one is, but, like the vast majority of the country, don’t live in fecking London, you self obsessed wankers… *
NOBODY USES OYSTER CARDS IN LONDON, even if they live in London.
Cashless via any known bank card works the same way so there is absolutely no point whatsoever in having an Oyster.
With contactless, the world’s your lobster.
Or even crab, though I doubt the LT card was used for today's coincidentally happy story ...
Interesting website - try the quiz! I scored 2 and 3 on my two attempts. The theme may be of general interest to us here... https://www.wearepolesapart.com/
Having tried the quiz (once - not wasting my time again) I think that was rather obvious. Pick some voters who have voted against the natural vote for their overall views and then amaze (!) people trying to guess how they voted or would vote. A bit like putting the spot the ball ball in the wrong place on purpose.
Interesting website - try the quiz! I scored 2 and 3 on my two attempts. The theme may be of general interest to us here... https://www.wearepolesapart.com/
Having tried the quiz (once - not wasting my time again) I think that was rather obvious. Pick some voters who have voted against the natural vote for their overall views and then amaze (!) people trying to guess how they voted or would vote. A bit like putting the spot the ball ball in the wrong place on purpose.
I scored a big fat zero. I got the Green and Lib Dem the wrong way around. Of course we forget the significance of tactical voting.
I only got 1 - but that was the single Scottish voter.
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
Immigration isn't a Ponzi scheme, it's simply a natural consequence of different demographics and different economic situations in different parts of the world and the technology existing to make migration relatively cheap. It has always been like this - we act like it's a new thing because the phenomenon of other people coming to the UK is relatively recent (not that recent of course, large scale immigration started soon after ww2, more than 70 years ago) but we were exporting large numbers of people to the rest of the world from the 17th century onwards. When Britons emigrated to the Americas or Australia or Africa was that a Ponzi scheme? Arguably the entire human civilisation, which is devouring the world's resources at an unsustainable pace, is a Ponzi scheme, but there's nothing especially unsustainable about post war immigration patterns in the UK. People might not like it, of course, that's an entirely different question.
Total bollocks
Immigration into the UK in recent decades has been completely unprecedented in scale and proportion
1 in 6 people in the UK is now foreign born. This has consequences. And one of them was Brexit. It’s not why I voted for it, but many did. As Remainers keep reminding us. And yet it was the Remainers that opened the borders
Here's a list of foreign born people I know.
My wife's parents (father worked for decades as a doctor in the NHS) My wife's brothers (both doctors, one a GP in a poor part of Leeds, the other looks after sick newborns) My brother's partner Two of my children My boss (started a multi billion dollar hedge fund, employs a lot of people in the UK, is a major philanthropist) Most of my colleagues Loads of the parents I know from school Loads of my neighbours Loads of my friends
Meanwhile, I have lived abroad in two different countries for eight years altogether.
I just don't see what the problem is with people moving about. It's the world we live in. If we didn't want people moving here we shouldn't have colonised half the world, taught them all English and invented the jet engine.
"I'm sorry Mr. Working Class Lad from a Council Estate. If you didn't want unaffordable housing prices from population growth, your pay and conditions undercut from poor immigrants, and a big social divide in your town from a new community that sticks to itself, you should have intervened 100 years before your birth with the upper middle class actions in Asia."
Mr WCL would be paying Belgian tax rates if it weren't for immigrant workers propping up the British pensioner regime.
Depends on the immigrant group. Indian doctors, German engineers and French bankers, for sure. But poor immigrants are net costs to the taxpayer over a lifetime. That's why people want control over immigration, so they can let in the net adds and filter the rest. Big business, on the other hand, wants as much cheap labour as possible.
Well, almost everyone is a net cost to the taxpayer over a lifetime, including the average doctor, engineer and banker, depending on how many kids they have. (Albeit PB comments seems to contain a disproportionate share of six-figure folks.)
That's not true. Government spending per person is about 10k. You have to be earning about 40k a year to pay that much in income tax. Of course there will be years you don't pay as much tax post retirement, and there are other taxes like NI and VAT, but the overall number comes out around a similar point.
From a purely public finance perspective, you want people to emigrate from the UK in their early to mid 60s.
From a political point of view I'd say a couple of years earlier would be ideal. Boris is 58.
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 legacy of the brief Truss/Kwarteng period has been to fix the idea in the minds of many voters that the mess we are in now is down to Tory incompetence.
Yes, there are non-Tory reasons for some of the huge mess we are in (even though they have been in power a long time), but their actions (and apparently cluelessness as to our problems) leading to their own ousting makes it pretty reasonable for people to assume it all down to the party.
It doesn't actually matter how much of the blame can be laid at Truss's door, it's how people perceived it.
Hard to believe it was only about 4 weeks but we appeared to be on the brink of financial collapse, Tory vote share plummeted. It was a Black Wednesday event, the Tories are not going to be able to simply change tack and hope the voters forget it ever happened.
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
Immigration isn't a Ponzi scheme, it's simply a natural consequence of different demographics and different economic situations in different parts of the world and the technology existing to make migration relatively cheap. It has always been like this - we act like it's a new thing because the phenomenon of other people coming to the UK is relatively recent (not that recent of course, large scale immigration started soon after ww2, more than 70 years ago) but we were exporting large numbers of people to the rest of the world from the 17th century onwards. When Britons emigrated to the Americas or Australia or Africa was that a Ponzi scheme? Arguably the entire human civilisation, which is devouring the world's resources at an unsustainable pace, is a Ponzi scheme, but there's nothing especially unsustainable about post war immigration patterns in the UK. People might not like it, of course, that's an entirely different question.
Total bollocks
Immigration into the UK in recent decades has been completely unprecedented in scale and proportion
1 in 6 people in the UK is now foreign born. This has consequences. And one of them was Brexit. It’s not why I voted for it, but many did. As Remainers keep reminding us. And yet it was the Remainers that opened the borders
Here's a list of foreign born people I know.
My wife's parents (father worked for decades as a doctor in the NHS) My wife's brothers (both doctors, one a GP in a poor part of Leeds, the other looks after sick newborns) My brother's partner Two of my children My boss (started a multi billion dollar hedge fund, employs a lot of people in the UK, is a major philanthropist) Most of my colleagues Loads of the parents I know from school Loads of my neighbours Loads of my friends
Meanwhile, I have lived abroad in two different countries for eight years altogether.
I just don't see what the problem is with people moving about. It's the world we live in. If we didn't want people moving here we shouldn't have colonised half the world, taught them all English and invented the jet engine.
Sweden didn't colonise much, and they've got plenty of immigrants.
Apart from half of what is now England, although it was a fair time ago…
The Swedelaw?
Ran as far as Gretna. After that was the law of the turnip.
One must remember that “Denmark” during the Danelaw period included big chunks of what is nowadays Sweden, Norway and Germany.
The “Danes” (Norse is more accurate) we’re all over the place, including Normandy: they’d only recently adopted French before conquering England.
So, Swedelaw is not wholly innacurate.
As for “the Swedes didn’t colonise much”, er… apart from Ukraine, Russia, Finland, the Baltics and northern Germany, no, not much.
Sorry, completely unconnected, but does anyone know what happened to @astateofdenmark ?
He was around pb in the late 2000’s / early 2010’s. Did he morph into another poster, without me noticing? He was a decent tipster.
Interesting website - try the quiz! I scored 2 and 3 on my two attempts. The theme may be of general interest to us here... https://www.wearepolesapart.com/
Having tried the quiz (once - not wasting my time again) I think that was rather obvious. Pick some voters who have voted against the natural vote for their overall views and then amaze (!) people trying to guess how they voted or would vote. A bit like putting the spot the ball ball in the wrong place on purpose.
Not likely to be popular with people to whom everything is simple and obvious.
They should close all ticket stations on the Tube as paper tickets are even stupider and equally as pointless as Oysters. I mean, it’s not even possible to pay cash on a bus (rightly).
Strangely. I see folk paying cash every day.
Not down here you don’t. Buses have been cashless for years.
It is curious that the publicly owned system in London appears to be extraordinarily cheaper, more reliable, regular, more modern and convenient than the private sector equivalent up here. How can that have defied the natural law of stuff?
Yes, and at least the government is now admitting it is dire trouble (if still not the full extent). Means they are at least trying to do something about the trouble.
Probably won't work, but the one positive of the Trussterf*ck is the goverment has to be slightly more honest.
They should close all ticket stations on the Tube as paper tickets are even stupider and equally as pointless as Oysters. I mean, it’s not even possible to pay cash on a bus (rightly).
They should close all ticket stations on the Tube as paper tickets are even stupider and equally as pointless as Oysters. I mean, it’s not even possible to pay cash on a bus (rightly).
Strangely. I see folk paying cash every day.
Not down here you don’t. Buses have been cashless for years.
It is curious that the publicly owned system in London appears to be extraordinarily cheaper, more reliable, regular, more modern and convenient than the private sector equivalent up here. How can that have defied the natural law of stuff?
Something to do with a Woke Conspiracy and MSM (whatever that stands for).
A Trump Lake ticket makes total sense for both of them
It revives her nearly dead-on-arrival political career
It softens Trump with a telegenic, articulate and plausible woman who can probably sell Trumpism better than him
I wouldn’t write them entirely off. Unfortunately
Normally, VP picks are announced only after the nomination has been secured. So, if it is to Lake, we'll probably not know for 18 months, or even longer.
Unless Trump flounces from the GOP and just announces his own party.
Though the idea Kari Lake is plausible is laughable. She's a loon.
She's plausible enough to have come from nowhere, taken the GOP Arizona primary, and now come within inches of being Arizona governor
She is definitely "plausible"
I can't think of a better fit as a VP candidate for Trump
He has a big problem with women voters
He needs a winner though, not someone to do rabble rousing - he's already good at that. Who brings him something like Pence presumably brought evangelicals?
After all, 'within inches of being Arizona governor' is not much of a cv when the Republicans won by 14, 12 and 12, in the last three gubernatorials there.
I do love the word gubernatorial.
Tulsi. She’s at least held national office. And is mad as a box of frogs, so ticks the boxes.
According to Goodwin our debt servicing costs have gone from £56bn last year to £120bn this year. All this time I thought that we were borrowing at fixed low rates of interest. Why did no-one point this out?????? So now we are screwed because so much of our debt is indexed to inflation. Why? Was that the reason interest on government borrowing seemed so cheap?
According to Goodwin our debt servicing costs have gone from £56bn last year to £120bn this year. All this time I thought that we were borrowing at fixed low rates of interest. Why did no-one point this out?????? So now we are screwed because so much of our debt is indexed to inflation. Why? Was that the reason interest on government borrowing seemed so cheap?
A quick note about Oyster cards. Old folk from outside London can ride the buses for free using their bus pass but have to pay to use the tube. But if you have a senior railcard, which gets you 33% off all rail fares, you can have this 'registered' with your Oyster card so you get 33% off tube travel too. Yet another insult to workers and strivers, needless to say...
I disagree, many of the papers hailed Kwasi budget as best proper Conservative budget for decades, it wasn’t till following week the gloss came off with the unlucky run on pound, but self made spike in borrowing cost.
According to Goodwin our debt servicing costs have gone from £56bn last year to £120bn this year. All this time I thought that we were borrowing at fixed low rates of interest. Why did no-one point this out?????? So now we are screwed because so much of our debt is indexed to inflation. Why? Was that the reason interest on government borrowing seemed so cheap?
AIUI, about 25% of our gilts are index-linked.
I posed the question earlier. I'm not sure Goodwin is right with those figures. That's an astonishing increase in one year.
A Trump Lake ticket makes total sense for both of them
It revives her nearly dead-on-arrival political career
It softens Trump with a telegenic, articulate and plausible woman who can probably sell Trumpism better than him
I wouldn’t write them entirely off. Unfortunately
Lake isn't a credible potential POTUS though in the event that DJT has a gripper. Her CV before failing to become governor of AZ was reading the weather on local TV.
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
According to Goodwin our debt servicing costs have gone from £56bn last year to £120bn this year. All this time I thought that we were borrowing at fixed low rates of interest. Why did no-one point this out?????? So now we are screwed because so much of our debt is indexed to inflation. Why? Was that the reason interest on government borrowing seemed so cheap?
AIUI, about 25% of our gilts are index-linked.
I posed the question earlier. I'm not sure Goodwin is right with those figures. That's an astonishing increase in one year.
They include the increase in repayment liability on the IL gilts, I think. Which is a very big figure indeed when inflation is 10%.
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
Surely it's net debt we should be worried about? What I can't fathom is the idea of it doubling in a year. Also why when our economy is still smaller than pre-covid are we expected to grow less than any of our competitors next year? Brexit related? Okay, well what exactly?
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
Surely it's net debt we should be worried about? What I can't fathom is the idea of it doubling in a year. Also why when our economy is still smaller than pre-covid are we expected to grow less than any of our competitors next year? Brexit related? Okay, well what exactly?
Big drop in consumer spending is part of it, presumably ?
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
Surely it's net debt we should be worried about? What I can't fathom is the idea of it doubling in a year. Also why when our economy is still smaller than pre-covid are we expected to grow less than any of our competitors next year? Brexit related? Okay, well what exactly?
Big drop in consumer spending is part of it, presumably ?
They should close all ticket stations on the Tube as paper tickets are even stupider and equally as pointless as Oysters. I mean, it’s not even possible to pay cash on a bus (rightly).
Strangely. I see folk paying cash every day.
Not down here you don’t. Buses have been cashless for years.
It is curious that the publicly owned system in London appears to be extraordinarily cheaper, more reliable, regular, more modern and convenient than the private sector equivalent up here. How can that have defied the natural law of stuff?
If you exclude what is owed to the Bank of England the UK's debt is something like £1.3tn. So how can debt interest be £120bn per year? That's 9.0% interest. Seriously?
UK general government gross debt was £2,436.7 billion at the end of Quarter 2 (Apr to June) 2022
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
Surely it's net debt we should be worried about? What I can't fathom is the idea of it doubling in a year. Also why when our economy is still smaller than pre-covid are we expected to grow less than any of our competitors next year? Brexit related? Okay, well what exactly?
Big drop in consumer spending is part of it, presumably ?
But why should that be so much worse for us?
Household spending a higher percentage of GDP compared with France and Germany ?
Newsnight spotting that the revised forecast figures abandon the previous assumption that immigration would fall.
Can you imagine the furore from the right wing press if Labour had enacted that policy . They’re strangely quiet on the matter ! Probably because they waged a disgusting hate filled campaign against EU nationals during the EU ref and lied to their readers that immigration would fall .
So now Brits have lost their FOM rights and for what ! The final piece of the Brexit fraud is now in place .
Newsnight spotting that the revised forecast figures abandon the previous assumption that immigration would fall.
Can you imagine the furore from the right wing press if Labour had enacted that policy . They’re strangely quiet on the matter ! Probably because they waged a disgusting hate filled campaign against EU nationals during the EU ref and lied to their readers that immigration would fall .
So now Brits have lost their FOM rights and for what ! The final piece of the Brexit fraud is now in place .
Brexit is like a complex film noir involving water rights, infidelity and incest. Nothing was what it was portrayed to be.
The Tories have increased Direct Taxation in this Autumn Statement , and by doing so have set a precedent which Labour can now follow much less timidly than has been the case since the 1980s. A Top rate of Income Tax of 60% - which Thatcher happily tolerated until 1988 - now becomes a much more realistic policy option.
Comments
On fossil fuels I think the jury is still out. I am intrigued by the idea of all the things that need to go right for a species to reach the state of development we have now, and fossil fuels or equivalent energy source is a prerequisite.
Thanks for the input, though.
I’ve learned something. Not quite sure what, but something!
Coal *extraction* peaked in 2008; coal *production* peaked in the Carboniferous.
Fossil fuel and all that, as any fule kno.
Not having a license or or at least an ID card makes many ordinary transactions difficult, or even impossible. Recently, for example, in my area, the rules changed and you need to show one to buy alcoholic drinks. (I had almost forgotten how to show an ID, since it had been so long since I was last asked.)
(For the record: Requiring a photo ID for voting is quite popular with the public. I don't think it would do much to reduce vote fraud. But, in some places, it might help poor people get more integrated with the legal economy.)
Too many people on here are predictable and doctrinaire, and that dulls the site down
On balance, an asset
Anyway, I have no desire to talk about him anymore - he'd enjoy it.
But he does add colour, even if it goes to far sometimes.
That's not "clever". We could all do it if we wanted to do so.
There are far better posters on here who perform the role of devil's advocate with much more skill and effectiveness.
The “Danes” (Norse is more accurate) we’re all over the place, including Normandy: they’d only recently adopted French before conquering England.
So, Swedelaw is not wholly innacurate.
As for “the Swedes didn’t colonise much”, er… apart from Ukraine, Russia, Finland, the Baltics and northern Germany, no, not much.
I agree she did.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2022/nov/17/afzelius-crab-rediscovery-225-years-sierra-leone-aoe
“Financial Trap set for Labour” simpers the independent. Big G was right.
“Sanity restored after insanity of Kwartengs budget.” Acclaims the Financial Times. 🥳
“Futtocks End and other short stories, Blu-ray accl- Wait. That’s an advert on page.
The Daily Star has a gimp in latex and hornets in your pants. I’ll put them down as, sanguine?
Interesting spin.
Is the mail turning on the oldies?
Has The Mirror hacked the Mail front page
Hard to believe it was only about 4 weeks but we appeared to be on the brink of financial collapse, Tory vote share plummeted. It was a Black Wednesday event, the Tories are not going to be able to simply change tack and hope the voters forget it ever happened.
He was around pb in the late 2000’s / early 2010’s. Did he morph into another poster, without me noticing? He was a decent tipster.
Watch @steverichards14 and I review them on @SkyNews at 10.30pm tonight. #skypapers
https://twitter.com/christopherhope/status/1593365288367624193
https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/1593214478195519489?s=46&t=7acgFT8LWBCLjHRc_hSA4g
How can that have defied the natural law of stuff?
Probably won't work, but the one positive of the Trussterf*ck is the goverment has to be slightly more honest.
(Not to say I don’t think some vulnerable pensioners need it - but it should be means tested at least)
@Telegraph | #TomorrowsPapersToday | #FrontPages https://twitter.com/FirstEdition/status/1593366894811168769/photo/1
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Malaysian_general_election
A messy array of politicians and parties are competing to win the election—and avoid jail:
https://archive.ph/geiBK
She’s at least held national office. And is mad as a box of frogs, so ticks the boxes.
@guardian | #TomorrowsPapersToday | #FrontPages https://twitter.com/FirstEdition/status/1593366078662578186/photo/1
https://twitter.com/henrymance/status/1593370541423038464
"At last a true Tory Budget!" Is the appropriate headline.
So much control. Such sovereignty.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2022/nov/17/autumn-statement-jeremy-hunt-confirms-uk-already-in-recession-as-he-unveils-tax-rises-and-spending-curbs
https://twitter.com/MattChorley/status/1593371988256559105
There's £741bn of gilts held by the BoE, so it's more like £1.7trn. Still £120bn of interest seems a little high.
(Of course, quite possible that an unsterilized number is being used, and then £120bn on £2.4/5trn seems - while too high - not a million miles off.)
Which is a very big figure indeed when inflation is 10%.
Brexit is also part of it, according to the BoE.
So now Brits have lost their FOM rights and for what ! The final piece of the Brexit fraud is now in place .
Forget it Jake, it’s Chinatown.