Howdy, Stranger!

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

“I’m a celeb”: 48% are viewing Hancock more positively – politicalbetting.com

SystemSystem Posts: 8,489
edited November 21 in General
image“I’m a celeb”: 48% are viewing Hancock more positively – politicalbetting.com

In the betting he’s now a 16% chance to end up as the winner.

Read the full story here

«13

Comments

  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363
    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Far far too many empty seats - again

    This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA

    Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
    Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
    In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way.
    Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
    It has the Shell Pearl GTL project. Which is pretty cool if you're into the energy industry.
    Well that sounds a commendable and useful thing. But it's hardly a thing to make the spirit soar.

    If we were to back to the 'loveliest counties' list from over the summer: I would suggest even before the oppressive regime is considered, there is not one British county less lovely than Qatar. Not even Caithness.
    I visited it when it was being built, and it had six giant Linde air separators, each the size of a football pitch, sitting on pylons.

    We're standing at the top of one of the pylons, having everything explained by a Shell engineer.

    "When this plant is operating at full capacity, these ASUs will be drawing out more oxygen from the air than all the living things in Qatar"

    "Wow", I said, "if I were to stand here, would I notice?"

    "You wouldn't want to stand here," said the engineer with an incredulous look that said - roughly - this man is a complete idiot.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,143
    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Far far too many empty seats - again

    This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA

    Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
    Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
    In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way.
    Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
    It has the Shell Pearl GTL project. Which is pretty cool if you're into the energy industry.
    Well that sounds a commendable and useful thing. But it's hardly a thing to make the spirit soar.

    If we were to back to the 'loveliest counties' list from over the summer: I would suggest even before the oppressive regime is considered, there is not one British county less lovely than Qatar. Not even Caithness.
    I visited it when it was being built, and it had six giant Linde air separators, each the size of a football pitch, sitting on pylons.

    We're standing at the top of one of the pylons, having everything explained by a Shell engineer.

    "When this plant is operating at full capacity, these ASUs will be drawing out more oxygen from the air than all the living things in Qatar"

    "Wow", I said, "if I were to stand here, would I notice?"

    "You wouldn't want to stand here," said the engineer with an incredulous look that said - roughly - this man is a complete idiot.
    Sounds like Arnie's Total Recall - in reverse.....
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,160
    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    It was a wonderful start. We looked great and seemed to know exactly where our teammates were. The through ball from Bellingham to Wilson for the sixth goal was a thing of utter beauty – remarkably he won't get the assist because Wilson unselfishly passed it to Grealish to tap in.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    rcs1000 said:

    Cookie said:

    Ghedebrav said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Far far too many empty seats - again

    This is a fucking world cup. Five billion people would love tickets for any game. Stupid greedy FIFA

    Well they would, but not at any price. And having to go to a shitty desert theocracy where you can't drink or fornicate is quite a high price to pay.
    Ha. To paraphrase Alan Partridge, "I'll accept one, but not both!"
    In fact, I wonder if Qatar is the shittiest country in the world. I've had a hunt round on Google maps - it appears to be utterly lacking in any natural beauty whatsoever. Nothing evident to lift the spirit in any way.
    Actually, Bahrain looks even grimmer.
    It has the Shell Pearl GTL project. Which is pretty cool if you're into the energy industry.
    Well that sounds a commendable and useful thing. But it's hardly a thing to make the spirit soar.

    If we were to back to the 'loveliest counties' list from over the summer: I would suggest even before the oppressive regime is considered, there is not one British county less lovely than Qatar. Not even Caithness.
    I visited it when it was being built, and it had six giant Linde air separators, each the size of a football pitch, sitting on pylons.

    We're standing at the top of one of the pylons, having everything explained by a Shell engineer.

    "When this plant is operating at full capacity, these ASUs will be drawing out more oxygen from the air than all the living things in Qatar"

    "Wow", I said, "if I were to stand here, would I notice?"

    "You wouldn't want to stand here," said the engineer with an incredulous look that said - roughly - this man is a complete idiot.
    It's a useful skill to be able to tell when people think you are being an idiot, even if they won't say so openly. Very much missing in politics.
  • novanova Posts: 468
    It's not a surprise - I think most people don't pay huge amounts of attention to politics, and most politicians aren't as evil or stupid as they're made out to be.

    And on a more cynical note, he's a politician and he's doing this with the specific intention of improving people's views of him, so they are likely seeing the "best version" of Matt Hancock.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229
    I've never seen the show, and a serving MP should probably not go on such a thing, but on the basis they get to show a bit more humanity I'd think most MPs would get a little positive boost from doing so.
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 15,160
    ....
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    It was a wonderful start. We looked great and seemed to know exactly where our teammates were. The through ball from Bellingham to Wilson for the sixth goal was a thing of utter beauty – remarkably he won't get the assist because Wilson unselfishly passed it to Grealish to tap in.
    So, are all those who were calling for England to withdraw from the World Cup over an armband still sticking by that decision after the 6-2 win? It seems to have gone quieter on the issue since full time.

    https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1594726162290585601
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,143
    There it is 1-0, par score for the Dutch against Senegal.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 46,920
    I wonder if The Sun will go with "Iran Mullahed"
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,761
    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    It was a wonderful start. We looked great and seemed to know exactly where our teammates were. The through ball from Bellingham to Wilson for the sixth goal was a thing of utter beauty – remarkably he won't get the assist because Wilson unselfishly passed it to Grealish to tap in.
    So, are all those who were calling for England to withdraw from the World Cup over an armband still sticking by that decision after the 6-2 win? It seems to have gone quieter on the issue since full time.

    https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1594726162290585601
    My opinion in this is unchanged: I'd rather England wasn't there. Qatar is clearly dreadful, and the whole tournament will, understandably, be overshadowed by the politics of it. That said, not turning up could have been embarrassing if we are now dependent on Qatar for gas rather than Russia ( they do seem, possibly, less awful than Russia.)
    Mind you, I wouldn't mind particularly if I never saw a football match again that I didn't have a relative in. So it would be no particular sacrifice on my part.
    Still, it was a good performance.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
    All true, nonetheless England were excitingly nerveless today. Looked like they didn't give a damn and knew they were going to win

    I think it might be because some of them are so young: Bellingham 19, Saka 21, Mount 22, Foden 23

    Young people can be fearless, the old have failed and fear failing again
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 21
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
    African qualifying is the most difficult of the lot.
    10 groups of 4. Only the winner goes through.
    Then a playoff against another group winner to qualify.
    This ensures some variety of teams. And battle tested too.
    Asia seems designed to give the established countries multiple second and third chances.
    So the same countries appear almost every time. And struggle.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,029
    People consume political journalism to feel superior to politicians, so of course a more positive or neutral framing in a different kind of the media makes them look better.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    Hmm.

    How much more positively is 'much more positively?'

    Because if people think he's a fifth rate twat rather than an unredeemed c*** whom they would like to actually string up, that's much more positive but it isn't exactly good news for him.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Keir Starmer's approval rating is +9%.

    Keir Starmer Approval Rating (20 November):

    Approve: 36% (-4)
    Disapprove: 27% (-1)
    Net: +9% (-3)

    Changes +/- 16-17 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594750045244764160/photo/1
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Starmer leads Sunak by 3%.

    At this moment, which of the following do British voters think would be the better Prime Minister for the UK? (20 November)

    Keir Starmer 41% (+1)
    Rishi Sunak 38% (+1)

    Changes +/- 16-17 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594742496814317576/photo/1
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,143
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
    All true, nonetheless England were excitingly nerveless today. Looked like they didn't give a damn and knew they were going to win

    I think it might be because some of them are so young: Bellingham 19, Saka 21, Mount 22, Foden 23

    Young people can be fearless, the old have failed and fear failing again
    Yes, no doubt England were good today, but I don't think Iran are comparable to Senegal whatever the rankings say. Over half of the Senegal first team plays in an elite league. Senegal aren't a small team, they are probably about as good as Poland or Sweden, teams England would be looking to beat in a tight game. The Dutch are a big team historically but the current team is, IMO, pants. No firepower upfront and VVD is slowing quite badly so gets beaten a lot more than he used to (see also Liverpool's league position).

    England have put a marker down and other teams will have taken notice, IMO, England are the team to fear at the WC for every other nation, if Maguire is injured and Ben White comes into the defence to replace him it greatly improves the first 11 as well.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972
    As someone with f-all interest in football, it's funny to see self-proclaimed 'experts' in other areas opining on an area they're not professionally involved with, when an eleven year old from their local Sunday league club would probably give better 'advice' and insight to a manager.

    And extend that to every other topic we discuss on here...
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    ydoethur said:

    Hmm.

    How much more positively is 'much more positively?'

    Because if people think he's a fifth rate twat rather than an unredeemed c*** whom they would like to actually string up, that's much more positive but it isn't exactly good news for him.

    Rather reminds me of the PBer, I'm ashamed to say I forget whom, who claims that the "Scottish Labour Party" can only improve its parliamentary performance at the next GE. I mean, they only have one MP right now.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 104,871
    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 21

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    Mr Galloway was always a cool cat, man. He didn't need to prove it.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQA2X4yvK_g
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    Carnyx said:

    ydoethur said:

    Hmm.

    How much more positively is 'much more positively?'

    Because if people think he's a fifth rate twat rather than an unredeemed c*** whom they would like to actually string up, that's much more positive but it isn't exactly good news for him.

    Rather reminds me of the PBer, I'm ashamed to say I forget whom, who claims that the "Scottish Labour Party" can only improve its parliamentary performance at the next GE. I mean, they only have one MP right now.
    Well, in that case, he(?) was incorrect, they could still do worse.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    edited November 21
    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
    All true, nonetheless England were excitingly nerveless today. Looked like they didn't give a damn and knew they were going to win

    I think it might be because some of them are so young: Bellingham 19, Saka 21, Mount 22, Foden 23

    Young people can be fearless, the old have failed and fear failing again
    Yes, no doubt England were good today, but I don't think Iran are comparable to Senegal whatever the rankings say. Over half of the Senegal first team plays in an elite league. Senegal aren't a small team, they are probably about as good as Poland or Sweden, teams England would be looking to beat in a tight game. The Dutch are a big team historically but the current team is, IMO, pants. No firepower upfront and VVD is slowing quite badly so gets beaten a lot more than he used to (see also Liverpool's league position).

    England have put a marker down and other teams will have taken notice, IMO, England are the team to fear at the WC for every other nation, if Maguire is injured and Ben White comes into the defence to replace him it greatly improves the first 11 as well.
    What puzzles me is how shit England were going into the WC. We haven't won since March, and now suddenly, this?

    Perhaps they just didn't give a fuck about all the friendlies
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    Probably because they have nothing further to lose.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Stats on the subject are notoriously variable, but it seems reasonable to suppose that no less than about 2% of men are gay or bisexual. There's no particular reason to believe that sporting prowess is strongly correlated with heterosexuality - thus, we can estimate that at least 15 players of varying nationalities at the World Cup are into blokes.

    I invite you at this point to consider the extremely loud screaming that would've followed if, for arguments' sake, Fifa execs had been paid enough in bribes to award the 1986 edition of the tournament to South Africa rather than Mexico, and then told all the black players to forget about politics and concentrate on the football.

    Telling gays to go and play in Qatar is no different, philosophically, to that. It's only the fact that we can't see who any of them actually are that enables all the people who stand to make vast amounts of money out of this revolting circus to try to get away with what they are doing.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 72,705
    The second Dutch goal might yet be important
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    An article claiming England have the most valuable footie team at the WC, and Bellingham is worth €200m - more than Mbappe

    ?

    https://www.oann.com/sports/soccer-world-cups-most-valuable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soccer-world-cups-most-valuable
  • NGL.

    I’ve always liked Matt as a person.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145
    Cookie said:

    pigeon said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    It was a wonderful start. We looked great and seemed to know exactly where our teammates were. The through ball from Bellingham to Wilson for the sixth goal was a thing of utter beauty – remarkably he won't get the assist because Wilson unselfishly passed it to Grealish to tap in.
    So, are all those who were calling for England to withdraw from the World Cup over an armband still sticking by that decision after the 6-2 win? It seems to have gone quieter on the issue since full time.

    https://twitter.com/DavidHerdson/status/1594726162290585601
    My opinion in this is unchanged: I'd rather England wasn't there. Qatar is clearly dreadful, and the whole tournament will, understandably, be overshadowed by the politics of it. That said, not turning up could have been embarrassing if we are now dependent on Qatar for gas rather than Russia ( they do seem, possibly, less awful than Russia.)
    Mind you, I wouldn't mind particularly if I never saw a football match again that I didn't have a relative in. So it would be no particular sacrifice on my part.
    Still, it was a good performance.
    Oh absolutely, Qatar is vastly less problematic than Russia in the grand scheme of things. Then again, "not as bad as Russia" is much the same as saying "not as bad as the Black Death." It's a pretty low bar.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 19,811
    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1
  • MaxPBMaxPB Posts: 36,143
    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    MaxPB said:

    Leon said:

    Netherlands are busily showing how hard it can be to crack the "smaller teams"

    0-0 after an hour. I thought our game would be like this: cagey, anxious, close

    Beating Iran 6-2 was a splendid achievement. Keep it up Gareth

    The Netherlands team is nowhere near as good as England's. Our midfield and forwards are world class or near world class in every position and we've got a world class bench. If we had two better central defenders this team would be favourites to win the WC.

    If the Dutch scramble a 1-0 they'll be very lucky here, but I think that's about par for this team with that set of forwards. Senegal, despite only being two places above Iran, have got a way better team than Iran, if Mane was playing they'd be winning right now IMO, they are AFCON champions and Africa is a way better footballing region than Asia. Iran's real ranking is probably higher than 100, not 20 it's just a quirk of the weightings and them being from a shit region that gives them that ranking. They're like Celtic or Rangers, good for their league but absolutely crap otherwise (see Rangers and Celtic in the Champions League).
    All true, nonetheless England were excitingly nerveless today. Looked like they didn't give a damn and knew they were going to win

    I think it might be because some of them are so young: Bellingham 19, Saka 21, Mount 22, Foden 23

    Young people can be fearless, the old have failed and fear failing again
    Yes, no doubt England were good today, but I don't think Iran are comparable to Senegal whatever the rankings say. Over half of the Senegal first team plays in an elite league. Senegal aren't a small team, they are probably about as good as Poland or Sweden, teams England would be looking to beat in a tight game. The Dutch are a big team historically but the current team is, IMO, pants. No firepower upfront and VVD is slowing quite badly so gets beaten a lot more than he used to (see also Liverpool's league position).

    England have put a marker down and other teams will have taken notice, IMO, England are the team to fear at the WC for every other nation, if Maguire is injured and Ben White comes into the defence to replace him it greatly improves the first 11 as well.
    What puzzles me is how shit England were going into the WC. We haven't won since March, and now suddenly, this?

    Perhaps they just didn't give a fuck about all the friendlies
    Southgate was experimenting with the system, fundamentally England have got a world class midfield and forward line up and serious back up on the bench like Grealish, Foden and Rashford to come on late in matches and provide a lot of energy and match winners. It's difficult to fuck that up and now with Bellingham starting ahead of Phillips, there's a huge upgrade in midfield vs the Euros. Maguire and Shaw are the only real weaknesses in the team and defence backup, I think Pope or Ramsdale would be better in goal than Pickford too, but changing keeper in the run up to a tournament is a huge risk so understandable that Southgate has stuck with Pickford.

    What's interesting to me is just how much more attacking our shape was with Bellingham than Phillips. It's the difference between having two CMs that pass sideways with Rice and Phillips against one that always looks for the forwards pass and one that passes sideways with Rice and Bellingham. We just look so much more confident going forwards because there's a creative engine in midfield we didn't have at the last WC or Euros.
  • ChrisChris Posts: 8,821
    Interesting headlines at itv.com:
    Everton England fans searching for beer in Qatar 'taken to Sheikh's palace' to meet lions

    Not sure whether that's 'meet' in the same sense that John Reginald Halliday Christie met Albert Pierrepoint.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Combined Net Approval Ratings (20 November):

    Keir Starmer: +9% (-3)
    Rishi Sunak: -3% (-1)
    Jeremy Hunt: -10% (-1)

    Changes +/- 16-17 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594752643485913088/photo/1
  • FrankBoothFrankBooth Posts: 7,100
    Leon said:

    An article claiming England have the most valuable footie team at the WC, and Bellingham is worth €200m - more than Mbappe

    ?

    https://www.oann.com/sports/soccer-world-cups-most-valuable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soccer-world-cups-most-valuable

    I find that a little hard to believe but I presume it would be to do with the premier league being the most lucrative national club championship and the home grown player rule.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Perhaps the article - on perceptions of Hancock - is a betting post. From any other point of view it is hard to think of anything that could matter less.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Chris said:

    Interesting headlines at itv.com:
    Everton England fans searching for beer in Qatar 'taken to Sheikh's palace' to meet lions

    Not sure whether that's 'meet' in the same sense that John Reginald Halliday Christie met Albert Pierrepoint.

    Is the Book of Daniel relevant here?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
    Was extremely impressed with him and Osborne on ITN election night coverage.
    Just flicked it on in the bit between exit poll and results, and ended up staying the night.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
    I think there's some of that in it, but I think it's something more guttural: they are politicians, and we all know what politicians are like. We see them on TV spouting whatever the party line is, and we don't trust them. They are one-dimensional: 'politicians'.

    Appearing on a program like this adds another dimension. In the case of Balls (or Portillo with his later programs) they show there is a deeper, more human aspect. In the case of Galloway, that added dimension was generally negative.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,471
    One of Iran's best players is Jahanbakhsh. He was at Brighton from 2018 until last year. He rarely started games, and struggled to make an impact as a sub, barring one spectacular goal. It's really not surprising that England stuffed Iran, although they did it well.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
    I think there's some of that in it, but I think it's something more guttural: they are politicians, and we all know what politicians are like. We see them on TV spouting whatever the party line is, and we don't trust them. They are one-dimensional: 'politicians'.

    Appearing on a program like this adds another dimension. In the case of Balls (or Portillo with his later programs) they show there is a deeper, more human aspect. In the case of Galloway, that added dimension was generally negative.
    Spouting party lines makes people look stupid or duplicitous, unless they are really good at it.

    Since a lot of politicians are pleasant, intelligent people, they look better in a new profession.
  • Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 28,101
    Chris said:

    Interesting headlines at itv.com:
    Everton England fans searching for beer in Qatar 'taken to Sheikh's palace' to meet lions

    Not sure whether that's 'meet' in the same sense that John Reginald Halliday Christie met Albert Pierrepoint.

    I'd happily watch a 12-part travel documentary on the Gulf with this guy.

    https://twitter.com/pubIad/status/1594466123608723458
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,761
    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    As a result we have far too many migrants and far too few at the same time. No party is going to find this one easy. Now, if Shamima Begum and friends were prepared to pick leeks in Lincolnshire fields at 5 am on winter mornings maybe Sir Jame Eadie KC could stop wasting his talents defending the government's immoral nonsense.

  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
  • NigelbNigelb Posts: 44,981
    Leon said:

    An article claiming England have the most valuable footie team at the WC, and Bellingham is worth €200m - more than Mbappe

    ?

    If they win, it might even be true.
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,546

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
    I think there's some of that in it, but I think it's something more guttural: they are politicians, and we all know what politicians are like. We see them on TV spouting whatever the party line is, and we don't trust them. They are one-dimensional: 'politicians'.

    Appearing on a program like this adds another dimension. In the case of Balls (or Portillo with his later programs) they show there is a deeper, more human aspect. In the case of Galloway, that added dimension was generally negative.
    Balls is an intrinsically interesting and engaging person, an intellectual with a genuine hinterland and talent, and he's witty. Hancock on the other hand.......

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580
    Chris said:

    Interesting headlines at itv.com:
    Everton England fans searching for beer in Qatar 'taken to Sheikh's palace' to meet lions

    Not sure whether that's 'meet' in the same sense that John Reginald Halliday Christie met Albert Pierrepoint.

    John Amery had surely the best last words ever on that very subject:

    'I've always wanted to meet you, Mr Pierrepoint, though not of course under these circumstances!"
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,761

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your last sentence. I envy but admire those who have earned enough not to need to work any more.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972
    algarkirk said:

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    There may be something in being engage with people, or get them to like you, in a short span of time can lead to them finding it hard in the long term. Think Boris, who in short doses many people quite like, but seems to engender a lot of frustration with those who work with him more deeply.
    People grudgingly respect someone who plugs away gamely as Hancock is doing, but they felt Galloway was taking the piss. Balls I think has improved his reputation on a wider front, with other interesting programmes like the one he did on the motivations of deep South conservatives in the US.
    I think there's some of that in it, but I think it's something more guttural: they are politicians, and we all know what politicians are like. We see them on TV spouting whatever the party line is, and we don't trust them. They are one-dimensional: 'politicians'.

    Appearing on a program like this adds another dimension. In the case of Balls (or Portillo with his later programs) they show there is a deeper, more human aspect. In the case of Galloway, that added dimension was generally negative.
    Balls is an intrinsically interesting and engaging person, an intellectual with a genuine hinterland and talent, and he's witty. Hancock on the other hand.......
    How do you know that? Was this 'intellect' and 'genuine hinterland and talent' visible when he was an MP and minister? Because all I saw was a second-rate thug.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 24,267
    edited November 21
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    Well. If we accept that premise, then we need to make working more easier and more attractive.
    Yet we have UC taper rates at 70%+ once Council Tax, prescriptions and FSM are included. The highest tax rates since the 1940's. Punitively expensive childcare. Terrible facilities for care for elderly relatives, so people are choosing to do it themselves. Long waiting lists for treatment so folk are fit to work. A mental health system bordering on the non-existent for all but the wealthy or dangerous. Bureaucratic ID and DBS checks which take months for potential employees. Expensive and unreliable public transport.
    And whenever anyone asks for a pay rise anywhere near the rate of inflation they are told it's completely unaffordable and bordering on the immoral to ask for it.
    So it isn't a great surprise there are vacancies then.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 28,469
    Drunk England footie fans in Soho
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    Cookie said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    I'm not sure I necessarily agree with your last sentence. I envy but admire those who have earned enough not to need to work any more.
    Many of those I am referring to have been in safe jobs, never taken a risk in their lives and have been fortunate enough to have gold plated pensions that are essentially subsidised by younger workers who will never receive them. If people are that fortunate then they should feel some obligation to put something back (charitable work etc). Many do, but I suspect the majority do not, and have no intention of doing so.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930
    Bad luck to rcs1000 whose 3-0 bet on Netherlands almost happened.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972
    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    I am currently out of work (by choice), and I worked in an area that has a relatively high demand. My 'job', as it currently stands, is looking after an eight-year old child. I *could* work, but Mrs J earns enough for a second income to be unnecessary.

    But I miss work. I miss the challenge and the people. what would cause me to look for work? Off the top of my head:
    *) Mrs J losing her job.
    *) Much easier childcare.
    *) Much easier working environment, e.g. working from home and flexitime.
    *) Cheaper childcare for when both of us have to be at the office or working.

    As the little 'un grows older, these pressures will ease. But I know half a dozen people in the tech sector who have made the same decision I have: to quit work and raise children. And two of those are male.

    'worklessness' is an easy word to throw around, but as with everything, it is a complex issue.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 48,363
    Leon said:

    An article claiming England have the most valuable footie team at the WC, and Bellingham is worth €200m - more than Mbappe

    ?

    https://www.oann.com/sports/soccer-world-cups-most-valuable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soccer-world-cups-most-valuable

    Not daring to click on it... but is that One America News Network?
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891
    edited November 21

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.

    Now consider what most people's main expenses are:

    *Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
    *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
    *Supporting dependent children
    *Food
    *Utilities

    If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.

    I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    An article claiming England have the most valuable footie team at the WC, and Bellingham is worth €200m - more than Mbappe

    ?

    https://www.oann.com/sports/soccer-world-cups-most-valuable/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=soccer-world-cups-most-valuable

    Not daring to click on it... but is that One America News Network?
    @Leon watches far-right, pro-Trump cable news channel. Shocked I am.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    Carnyx said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
    I would love to see the complexity of that, or lack thereof. Tell me what a doctor's comparison is? There isn't one. A hospital doctor earns a very comparable salary with a partner in a provincial law practice, but additionally is likely to retire on 60% of that salary. Add to that salary many of them also have very lucrative private practice. The "deferred salary" argument is vacuous. It is an attempt to excuse public sector greed on the part of people who are already very well compensated for extremely safe jobs.
  • Jim_MillerJim_Miller Posts: 875
    Two days ago, The Washington Post published this defense of octogenarian workers, including Joe Biden:
    "But working past 80, while still the exception, is not as rare as it once was. In recent decades, the number of octogenarians in the U.S. workforce has soared, from about 110,000 — or 2.5 percent of the 80-plus population — in 1980 to a high of about 734,000 — or 6 percent of all octogenarians — in 2019, according to a Washington Post analysis of Bureau of Labor Statistics data. (The numbers begin falling after the pandemic started, with about 693,000 — or 5.5 percent of the population — working last year.)"
    source$: https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2022/11/19/joe-biden-80-workers/

    Oldies in the US are healthier than they were decades ago, and some of them like to work.

    An average 80-year-old man in the US can expect to live until 88 (a woman to 90). Since Biden seems to be doing the right things, keeping his weight under control, riding a bicycle, and so forth, I'd guess he can expect to live another ten years.

    (Many see Biden's frequent verbal flubs as evidence of a decline. Having watched him, off and on, all through his political career, I can say that I haven't seen much change in him; he has always made verbal flubs (which some attribute to his battle with stuttering when he was young).

    For the record, I've never voted for him.)

  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    What? They are a *contractual entitlement.* It is Maoism, genuinely, to think you can redefine their contractual entitlements because it's the state that is paying. Nobody stopped you, 40 years ago, from embarking on a career as an NHS administrator and signing up for the same benefits.

    From a practical POV I obviously have no idea what your own pension arrangements are but if the government arbitrarily stopped complying with its contractual obligations to pensioners, the hit to your direct or indirect exposure to gilts, would make you wish they hadn't.

    BTW I have never worked for the public sector, and my pension is a SIPP.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    pigeon said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.

    Now consider what most people's main expenses are:

    *Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
    *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
    *Supporting dependent children
    *Food
    *Utilities

    If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.

    I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
    The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
  • mwadamsmwadams Posts: 2,248
    Carnyx said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
    According to the ONS the public sector premium is still a thing (as of 2020) but that it is now actually *lower* than it used to be (on average) because the wage premium is still there (you get more for an equivalent job in the public sector) but the private sector now has more employer contribution to pensions. I expect that this is even more pronounced post-Covid but I can't find the data.

    The big shift occurred around the 2008 financial crisis when private sector pay growth plummeted but the public sector was comparatively protected.

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/publicandprivatesectorearnings/2019
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,471
    edited November 21
    ydoethur said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    Probably because they have nothing further to lose.
    I think it's the show they choose. Both Strictly and I'm a Celeb put people through the ringer. People sympathise. Big Brother shows them idling, sleeping, farting and pratting around. There are challenges but not in the same way.
  • DecrepiterJohnLDecrepiterJohnL Posts: 17,268
    edited November 21
    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.

    Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish.
    Did he ever actually replace Williamson? And if not, what happened to the apparently vital work that supposedly needed that titan of politics to oversee it?
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183

    Carnyx said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
    I would love to see the complexity of that, or lack thereof. Tell me what a doctor's comparison is? There isn't one. A hospital doctor earns a very comparable salary with a partner in a provincial law practice, but additionally is likely to retire on 60% of that salary. Add to that salary many of them also have very lucrative private practice. The "deferred salary" argument is vacuous. It is an attempt to excuse public sector greed on the part of people who are already very well compensated for extremely safe jobs.
    Your beef seems to be that the free market in employment is a market, and is free. A respectable beef with a long history behind it, but do you in fact belong to the SWP?
  • Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 19,471
    edited November 21

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.

    Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
    I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729
    Scott_xP said:

    Keir Starmer's approval rating is +9%.

    Keir Starmer Approval Rating (20 November):

    Approve: 36% (-4)
    Disapprove: 27% (-1)
    Net: +9% (-3)

    Changes +/- 16-17 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594750045244764160/photo/1

    Lol @ the don’t knows going up the longer he is in the job!
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609

    pigeon said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.

    Now consider what most people's main expenses are:

    *Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
    *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
    *Supporting dependent children
    *Food
    *Utilities

    If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.

    I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
    The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
    That is your choice but lots of people 'work to live' rather than 'live to work'.

    Also, many people do unpaid voluntary work in retirement, so while technically economically inactive they are still contributing to society.
  • pigeon said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.

    Now consider what most people's main expenses are:

    *Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
    *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
    *Supporting dependent children
    *Food
    *Utilities

    If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.

    I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
    The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
    Same here; although my global megacorps employer allowed us to buy more holiday, I never did; but then I was made redundant in an industry where old age is frowned upon and everyone wants hot new graduates with 10 years experience in whatever technology was invented five years ago.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 81,229

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
    When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
  • Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 19,930
    The best bet on this match is probably on more than 1.5 goals which is currently 1.48. DYOR.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.200449183
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 23,609
    IanB2 said:

    Scott_xP said:

    Keir Starmer's approval rating is +9%.

    Keir Starmer Approval Rating (20 November):

    Approve: 36% (-4)
    Disapprove: 27% (-1)
    Net: +9% (-3)

    Changes +/- 16-17 November

    https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/latest-gb-voting-intention-20-november-2022/ https://twitter.com/RedfieldWilton/status/1594750045244764160/photo/1

    Lol @ the don’t knows going up the longer he is in the job!
    Keir Starmer: man of mystery!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    pillsbury said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    What? They are a *contractual entitlement.* It is Maoism, genuinely, to think you can redefine their contractual entitlements because it's the state that is paying. Nobody stopped you, 40 years ago, from embarking on a career as an NHS administrator and signing up for the same benefits.

    From a practical POV I obviously have no idea what your own pension arrangements are but if the government arbitrarily stopped complying with its contractual obligations to pensioners, the hit to your direct or indirect exposure to gilts, would make you wish they hadn't.

    BTW I have never worked for the public sector, and my pension is a SIPP.
    Lol. I am not "Maoist" and am right of centre, but I know unfairness and hypocrisy when I see it. Governments have regularly redefined what is "fair", so could "redistribute" if they wished. When public sector pensions were originally designed it was expected you would die in your early 70s. They are a relic and are fundamentally unaffordable and unfair and encourage laziness and economic inactivity. It is a subject that requires much more scrutiny, but for reasons I described earlier it will never be addressed while MPs are beneficiaries.
  • novanova Posts: 468

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.

    Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
    I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
    I remember some programme a while back where they told fans of that railway show about Portillo's past as a politician.

    You could see their little hearts break before your eyes.
  • state_go_awaystate_go_away Posts: 5,130
    Two things most reasonable people want in life is to take care of any responsibilities and have fun! Once you get over 50 , the kids are usually grown up and the mortgage miniscule - so the brain turns to wanting fun - A lot of jobs can provide that (even if in a more low level consistent way in terms of mixing with colleagues or customers. So the decision is usually can oneself have more fun in or out of work ? For me my last job was a boring as hell (mainly remote working in the public sector) so I quit and got a fun job (cannot say where as I dont want to moderate my posts on here ) but I am enjoying the day much more despite commuting etc - I am 53 tomorrow
  • CarnyxCarnyx Posts: 27,891

    Carnyx said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
    I would love to see the complexity of that, or lack thereof. Tell me what a doctor's comparison is? There isn't one. A hospital doctor earns a very comparable salary with a partner in a provincial law practice, but additionally is likely to retire on 60% of that salary. Add to that salary many of them also have very lucrative private practice. The "deferred salary" argument is vacuous. It is an attempt to excuse public sector greed on the part of people who are already very well compensated for extremely safe jobs.
    I'll try again. When I went into a civil service organization in the days of national bargaining I did some research and found that the salary comparator was made against equivalent private sector posts, and was then carefully downweighted explicitly to cover the different pension schemes.

    Basically, they said: "We pay you less now but more in the future."

    That IS deferred salary.

    I can't remember the exact figure, but it was not trivial: something like 4 to 7% (possibly it varied according to salary level, anyway). Even then, there was a compulsory levy to pay toward the pension scheme, or more correctly pension entitlements.

    As for 'safe jobs': where have you been? There have been none in the public sector for the last 2-3 decades, unless you are very good friends with the politicians.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,972

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.

    Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
    I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
    Whilst you are on, what's your take on the MH17 verdict? Do you accept it?

    It's a simple question; I'm sure someone who peruses 'alternative' sources of information such as yourself will be fully briefed. ;)
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    HYUFD said:

    Looks like Hancock made the correct decision then for his future C list celeb career.

    He knew from the moment Sunak blanked him his political career was over, certainly in government and probably as an MP too

    Yes, the prize for Hancock will be to replace the ageing Michael Portillo as telly's politics and trains pundit. He will need to quit Parliament and get established before 200 other MPs lose their seats at the next general election and send their CVs to the BBC and Channel 4. All of which means that if CCHQ is as scared of by-elections as it makes out, despite a near-80 majority, Rishi Sunak might need to get Hancock back into the Cabinet sharpish. Fortunately, there might be a couple of vacancies on the horizon.

    Looking at the betting, though, Hancock is back out to 4th-favourite to win I'm A Celebrity so maybe something bad happened since the poll. The shrewdies got on hot favourite Owen at 33/1.
    I would rather watch Portillo's decomposing head in a jar of formeldahide traverse Britain in a train than the same thing featuring Hatt Mancock.
    Hmmm...kinky...
  • My daughter in law on a business trip for Canadian tourism, has just sent me a screen shot of USA v Wales live from her hotel room in Mexico City
  • turbotubbsturbotubbs Posts: 10,411
    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
    When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
    Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
  • pillsburypillsbury Posts: 183
    Andy_JS said:

    The best bet on this match is probably on more than 1.5 goals which is currently 1.48. DYOR.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.200449183

    OK just put pretty much my life savings on that, purely on your recommendation.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 12,135
    Carnyx said:

    Carnyx said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    Given that the Treasury very definitely reduced public sector workers' salaries during rtepeated comparative studies with the private sector, to allow for differences in pension schemes, public sector pensions *were* deferred salary by that measure - and also common sense, as with any other employers' pension scheme.
    I would love to see the complexity of that, or lack thereof. Tell me what a doctor's comparison is? There isn't one. A hospital doctor earns a very comparable salary with a partner in a provincial law practice, but additionally is likely to retire on 60% of that salary. Add to that salary many of them also have very lucrative private practice. The "deferred salary" argument is vacuous. It is an attempt to excuse public sector greed on the part of people who are already very well compensated for extremely safe jobs.
    I'll try again. When I went into a civil service organization in the days of national bargaining I did some research and found that the salary comparator was made against equivalent private sector posts, and was then carefully downweighted explicitly to cover the different pension schemes.

    Basically, they said: "We pay you less now but more in the future."

    That IS deferred salary.

    I can't remember the exact figure, but it was not trivial: something like 4 to 7% (possibly it varied according to salary level, anyway). Even then, there was a compulsory levy to pay toward the pension scheme, or more correctly pension entitlements.

    As for 'safe jobs': where have you been? There have been none in the public sector for the last 2-3 decades, unless you are very good friends with the politicians.
    When did you last hear of a doctor getting sacked? Or being made redundant aged 55 and being unable to get another job? Sure, there are such cases in some areas of the public sector, but the risk is much much lower than pretty much all areas of the private sector. I wouldn't worry though Carnyx, MPs and MSPs love the system too so the pension gravy train will continue and the very spurious justifications will continue too.
  • ydoethurydoethur Posts: 54,580

    kle4 said:

    It's funny how 'unlikeable' politicians such as Ed Balls and Hancock do well out of these things and others like the charismatic Galloway do not.

    That may be just you - I’ve never found Galloway charismatic. Ed Balls has emerged as a far nicer human being than he ever seemed when at the tribal heart beat of labour. Not sure on Hancock. I’m not generally a fan of people who have affairs, and I think he did some stuff over covid that was pretty close to being caddish.
    When you say you've never found his charismatic, how are you defining it? I've never found him likeable, but he definitely knew how to draw attention.
    Yes, I guess I’m going for likeable, but that is how I interpret charismatic. Dictionary may disagree…
    It literally means the ability to attract followers. From that point of view I'd say Galloway qualifies.

    Even though when he asked a colleague 'why do people take an instant dislike to me?' he got the unhesitating response, 'well, it saves time.'
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 42,729
    pillsbury said:

    Andy_JS said:

    The best bet on this match is probably on more than 1.5 goals which is currently 1.48. DYOR.

    https://www.betfair.com/exchange/plus/football/market/1.200449183

    OK just put pretty much my life savings on that, purely on your recommendation.
    Risen to 1.6 after the lacklustre start!
  • pigeonpigeon Posts: 3,145

    pigeon said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    It's also entirely understandable. Most people want to give up dragging themselves to work as soon as they can, and working (full-time, at least) becomes increasingly exhausting as we age. And an awful lot of jobs are shit anyway, of course.

    Now consider what most people's main expenses are:

    *Housing (whether renting or paying off a mortgage)
    *Transport (whether maintaining a car and buying petrol, or exorbitant train fares)
    *Supporting dependent children
    *Food
    *Utilities

    If you're, say, a 55 year old empty nester couple then you may very well have paid off your mortgage, the kids have either moved out or are working and making a net positive contribution to your finances, and giving up work then allows you to cease commuting and get rid of a lot of your transport costs. That only leaves food and utilities to pay for. Under such circumstances, and especially if you have some savings or investment income to help you get by and/or you're starting to suffer from chronic health complaints, the temptation to find some way to cut your working hours must be enormous.

    I'm now 46 and am aiming to go part time in another few years myself. If it gets to the point that you can live comfortably off half your income and shovel the other half into the bank, then working fewer hours is a perfectly legitimate lifestyle choice. I mean, if you have something better to do with the limited time left before you drop off your perch than working your arse off, why on Earth wouldn't you?
    The point I am making is not that people above a certain age should "work their arse off", just that it would be a good thing if there wasn't a culture that suggested doing nothing after a certain age is something that should be aspired to. Being economically inactive when you are still fit in mind and body is just laziness in my book. I have no intention of ever retiring unless I am ill.
    It depends very much upon one's personal circumstances. I suspect that you, and a lot of other people who are in no hurry to give up work, happen to do things that you quite enjoy. An Aldi shelf stacker in his early 60s, who is still physically capable of doing the work but has no financial necessity to keep on enduring long hours of tedium and a tiresome rotation of early and late shift work, might have a different perspective on the merits of retirement.
  • EPGEPG Posts: 5,029

    pillsbury said:

    pillsbury said:

    kle4 said:

    Cookie said:

    Scott_xP said:

    During the match, you probably missed this hair-raising interview with Tory MP & ERG member, Craig Mackinlay. Worth watching in full and sharing.

    TL/DR Unemployed or sick or young people - or those retiring early - should be 'encouraged' with 'toughness' to fill vacancies. ~AA https://twitter.com/BestForBritain/status/1594751692695687168/video/1

    We simultaneously have massive levels of worklessness and massive problems filling vacancies, at all skill levels.
    The culture of early retirement is definitely a very real problem. People boast about becoming economically inactive when they really don't need to be. It is very sad and reprehensible
    Then good news, a lot of people now expect to die before they can retire.
    While a large number of people in public sector (partic NHS) managerial grades can expect to retire at 60 or younger on pensions that are considerably higher than many professional people get paid in fulltime work.
    And good for them. Pensions are deferred salary, and you have to be comfortably to the left of Freddie Engels to think people can't freely negotiate the sum for which they are prepared to come in to work.
    That is a myth perpetrated by those who wish to greedily suck from the taxpayers tit. Public sector pensions are not deferred salary, they are a massive gold-plated perk. The sad thing is that many of those that are the biggest recipients are those that bang on about "fairness" and "greed" except when it comes to their pensions. I would love to see what the public sector unions would say if it were suggested that all public sector pensions should be evenly distributed amongst all workers. That would definitely be "fair". Why will this never happen? Because the MPs benefit from the same system.
    What? They are a *contractual entitlement.* It is Maoism, genuinely, to think you can redefine their contractual entitlements because it's the state that is paying. Nobody stopped you, 40 years ago, from embarking on a career as an NHS administrator and signing up for the same benefits.

    From a practical POV I obviously have no idea what your own pension arrangements are but if the government arbitrarily stopped complying with its contractual obligations to pensioners, the hit to your direct or indirect exposure to gilts, would make you wish they hadn't.

    BTW I have never worked for the public sector, and my pension is a SIPP.
    Lol. I am not "Maoist" and am right of centre, but I know unfairness and hypocrisy when I see it. Governments have regularly redefined what is "fair", so could "redistribute" if they wished. When public sector pensions were originally designed it was expected you would die in your early 70s. They are a relic and are fundamentally unaffordable and unfair and encourage laziness and economic inactivity. It is a subject that requires much more scrutiny, but for reasons I described earlier it will never be addressed while MPs are beneficiaries.
    You could say the same about property rights to houses. "You lot should have died earlier, so we're taking them away from you."
Sign In or Register to comment.