4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
We integrated computers and the Internet into Western labour markets over the last 40 years. Going from no computer to computer to online is bigger than no chatbot to chatbot. It didn't lead to 50% unemployment or a lack of need for migration.
Firstly, I am not sure that's true. There are many more hours of work activity that can be replaced by chatboxes than computers.
Secondly, it's not just chatboxes. It's automation on a vast scale, from driving to email response to predictive maintenance.
Thirdly, computers still needed a user for each one, whereas now the next wave is machine to machine interfacing.
Fourthly, we are not saying 50% unemployment. We are saying 50% of the population seeing stagnant or declining living standards. Which we are already seeing. It will just get a lot worse.
If we looked at a 50s office, we might have assumed that contemporary networked computers could have laid everyone else off. Computers and their users are looking after the things that used to be in dozens of workers' books or heads. But that means you can do things with the other workers. Admittedly, in recent years, a lot of those things have been ultra-low-growth tasks in regulatory compliance and lawsuit deterrence.
4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
A diesel Corsa is not a normal car!
Only two more popular models than the Corsa. Admittedly the petrol version is less fuel efficient, but not so much that it would be pushing 25p/mile. And that would be true of most normal size cars. Gas-guzzling people carriers might be a different matter, but outside of that I can't see anyone is out of pocket at 25p/mile.
We integrated computers and the Internet into Western labour markets over the last 40 years. Going from no computer to computer to online is bigger than no chatbot to chatbot. It didn't lead to 50% unemployment or a lack of need for migration.
Firstly, I am not sure that's true. There are many more hours of work activity that can be replaced by chatboxes than computers.
Secondly, it's not just chatboxes. It's automation on a vast scale, from driving to email response to predictive maintenance.
Thirdly, computers still needed a user for each one, whereas now the next wave is machine to machine interfacing.
Fourthly, we are not saying 50% unemployment. We are saying 50% of the population seeing stagnant or declining living standards. Which we are already seeing. It will just get a lot worse.
If we looked at a 50s office, we might have assumed that contemporary networked computers could have laid everyone else off. Computers and their users are looking after the things that used to be in dozens of workers' books or heads. But that means you can do things with the other workers. Admittedly, in recent years, a lot of those things have been ultra-low-growth tasks in regulatory compliance and lawsuit deterrence.
But that is the issue. Computers just replaced the first 10-15% of basic tasks. Low skill workers could move on to more of the other 85%. Now we are going to get to the 80th or 90th percentile of those basic tasks. This automation is on top of the previous automation. Low skill workers are squeezed into smaller and smaller chunks of activity. The "other things" that can be done are high skilled management work, integrating systems etc. Many people won't be up to it.
4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
A diesel Corsa is not a normal car!
Mileage isn't just for fuel though. There are a lot more costs associated with a car than just the fuel.
4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
A diesel Corsa is not a normal car!
Mileage isn't just for fuel though. There are a lot more costs associated with a car than just the fuel.
This is true, but quite a lot of those costs are, if not fixed, not directly proportional to mileage.
Lol. Once England get one goal, seems that we tend to do much better
Oh, yeah, and the Iran game was the perfect example. We struggle to break down teams that are playing for 0-0 from kickoff. Break through once and everything changes.
4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
Good goals, bad play. I have to be honest that Brazil, Argentina and France have all looked better than the half I've just seen. England can be better though.
4% is just silly. They are going to have to give way on this to at least 6%, probably 7%. They would honestly be better doing it now with better grace.
I have been told - whether truthfully or not I do not know - that almost all trusts charge nurses around £200 a month for parking. Plus, that after the first 3,000 miles the mileage rate for community nurses drops from a reasonable 56p per mile to a derisory 25p per mile.
If true, a very very easy win would be to ban trusts from charging staff for parking while they're on shift and upping the mileage rate. The former would increase take home pay by around 15% in the case of any nurse with a car which outside London, Birmingham and Manchester is I would assume the vast majority of them.
HMRC mileage rates are 45p up to 10k and 25p after that.
Even now fuel in most normal cars is less than 25p per mile (my diesel Corsa is around 15p).
Good goals, bad play. I have to be honest that Brazil, Argentina and France have all looked better than the half I've just seen. England can be better though.
Argentina have looked pretty dire for long periods. France's defence is just as bad as England's.
Good goals, bad play. I have to be honest that Brazil, Argentina and France have all looked better than the half I've just seen. England can be better though.
I disagree. That first goal was very good. There wasn’t a lot Senegal could do about it. England had some shaky moments in that half, but they have the ability to open teams up. France will be very difficult, but they can beat them.
We integrated computers and the Internet into Western labour markets over the last 40 years. Going from no computer to computer to online is bigger than no chatbot to chatbot. It didn't lead to 50% unemployment or a lack of need for migration.
Firstly, I am not sure that's true. There are many more hours of work activity that can be replaced by chatboxes than computers.
Secondly, it's not just chatboxes. It's automation on a vast scale, from driving to email response to predictive maintenance.
Thirdly, computers still needed a user for each one, whereas now the next wave is machine to machine interfacing.
Fourthly, we are not saying 50% unemployment. We are saying 50% of the population seeing stagnant or declining living standards. Which we are already seeing. It will just get a lot worse.
If the 'chatboxes' are accurate, yes. But what happens when they're wrong? If we're @rsing around on the Internet, they're fine. But what happens when we ask them for advice that is (ahem) dangerous?
Take the recipes that Leon was masturbating over earlier (and there's an unpleasant image). Say the AI decided that uncooked kidney beans would be a good part of the recipe?
There are many other examples where an AI *might* provide a good starting point: but you may well need a knowledgeable human in the loop to check that it is right five-nines. Which is exactly the problem autonomous cars have.
You just don’t get it. You haven’t got the brain for it and you hate change. Meh
LOL. No. I don't hate change. That's why I worked in tech - and area that is about constant change.
I'll repeat what I've said before: the threat from AI does not come from AI itself. It comes from idiots believing that AI is more capable than it really is, and therefore putting it in charge of things that really matter.
Good goals, bad play. I have to be honest that Brazil, Argentina and France have all looked better than the half I've just seen. England can be better though.
Argentina have looked pretty dire for long periods. France's defence is just as bad as England's.
If the 'chatboxes' are accurate, yes. But what happens when they're wrong? If we're @rsing around on the Internet, they're fine. But what happens when we ask them for advice that is (ahem) dangerous?
How is that any different from human beings who give out wrong advice all the time? If the error rate by computers is lower they will replace human beings.
Nurses probably deserve more than a 4% payrise but if they get significantly more than the 6% average UK payrise this year then the average taxpayer will be paying them for a bigger rise than they get.
An above inflation payrise and we risk an inflationary wage spiral adding to the inflation pressures from the sanctions and supply restrictions from the Russian Ukrainian war
Why do you hate public servants?
You are reading from Zahawi's hymnsheet. As someone with political ambitions it is not the look you think it is.
It is not hating public servants to suggest they shouldn’t get more than the 6% average pay rise.
A Tory government is certainly not going to tax private sector workers and pensioners more to give public sector workers a bigger pay rise than they get, especially when most public sector workers vote Labour
It only taxes private sector workers to give pensioners a bigger rise than they get...
Pensioners reward for voting overwhelmingly Conservative, indeed more so than private sector workers.
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
Good goals, bad play. I have to be honest that Brazil, Argentina and France have all looked better than the half I've just seen. England can be better though.
Argentina have looked pretty dire for long periods. France's defence is just as bad as England's.
Very direct, a lot of long balls from England. Almost like 90's England of a few years' ago ; but Southgate has it in him to get them playing in a more cultured style again ; I suppose he thinks that's what's needed here.
Nurses probably deserve more than a 4% payrise but if they get significantly more than the 6% average UK payrise this year then the average taxpayer will be paying them for a bigger rise than they get.
An above inflation payrise and we risk an inflationary wage spiral adding to the inflation pressures from the sanctions and supply restrictions from the Russian Ukrainian war
Why do you hate public servants?
You are reading from Zahawi's hymnsheet. As someone with political ambitions it is not the look you think it is.
It is not hating public servants to suggest they shouldn’t get more than the 6% average pay rise.
A Tory government is certainly not going to tax private sector workers and pensioners more to give public sector workers a bigger pay rise than they get, especially when most public sector workers vote Labour
It only taxes private sector workers to give pensioners a bigger rise than they get...
Pensioners reward for voting overwhelmingly Conservative, indeed more so than private sector workers.
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
Indeed. It would be nice if there were a party who would champion the interests of the private sector. I'd vote for it.
Nurses probably deserve more than a 4% payrise but if they get significantly more than the 6% average UK payrise this year then the average taxpayer will be paying them for a bigger rise than they get.
An above inflation payrise and we risk an inflationary wage spiral adding to the inflation pressures from the sanctions and supply restrictions from the Russian Ukrainian war
Why do you hate public servants?
You are reading from Zahawi's hymnsheet. As someone with political ambitions it is not the look you think it is.
It is not hating public servants to suggest they shouldn’t get more than the 6% average pay rise.
A Tory government is certainly not going to tax private sector workers and pensioners more to give public sector workers a bigger pay rise than they get, especially when most public sector workers vote Labour
It only taxes private sector workers to give pensioners a bigger rise than they get...
Pensioners reward for voting overwhelmingly Conservative, indeed more so than private sector workers.
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
Indeed. It would be nice if there were a party who would champion the interests of the private sector. I'd vote for it.
It would be especially nice if there were a party out there that did not see democracy and taxation as a purely transactional arrangement.
Well. That was one of the least dominant 2-0 halves I've ever seen. Bellingham was immense.
The best player on the pitch. Great move going to Germany, did wonders for his game. Much better than sitting on the bench here.
Although he was always on the field for Birmingham City to be fair. They retired the number 22 after him even though he left at 17.
Fair enough, but I don't think he would have developed as well as a player in the PL.
No. He had the choice of Man United or Dortmund. His Dad saw what happened with Jaden Sancho. He'd have made the occasional League Cup appearance for United.
In amongst all the excitement, you may not have noticed that Harry Kane is one goal away from equalling Wayne Rooney's all-time goalscoring record for England.
Nurses probably deserve more than a 4% payrise but if they get significantly more than the 6% average UK payrise this year then the average taxpayer will be paying them for a bigger rise than they get.
An above inflation payrise and we risk an inflationary wage spiral adding to the inflation pressures from the sanctions and supply restrictions from the Russian Ukrainian war
Why do you hate public servants?
You are reading from Zahawi's hymnsheet. As someone with political ambitions it is not the look you think it is.
It is not hating public servants to suggest they shouldn’t get more than the 6% average pay rise.
A Tory government is certainly not going to tax private sector workers and pensioners more to give public sector workers a bigger pay rise than they get, especially when most public sector workers vote Labour
It only taxes private sector workers to give pensioners a bigger rise than they get...
Pensioners reward for voting overwhelmingly Conservative, indeed more so than private sector workers.
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
"taxes".
Do you have a time machine, or are you a member of one of those weird linguistic groups which has no past or present tense?
Whacking fib there. Been a huge fib for all of 12 years. Apart from minor twiddles in Wales.
Edit: this is a direct quote from your post, in case you edit it without admitting it. "Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote"
Nurses probably deserve more than a 4% payrise but if they get significantly more than the 6% average UK payrise this year then the average taxpayer will be paying them for a bigger rise than they get.
An above inflation payrise and we risk an inflationary wage spiral adding to the inflation pressures from the sanctions and supply restrictions from the Russian Ukrainian war
Why do you hate public servants?
You are reading from Zahawi's hymnsheet. As someone with political ambitions it is not the look you think it is.
It is not hating public servants to suggest they shouldn’t get more than the 6% average pay rise.
A Tory government is certainly not going to tax private sector workers and pensioners more to give public sector workers a bigger pay rise than they get, especially when most public sector workers vote Labour
It only taxes private sector workers to give pensioners a bigger rise than they get...
Pensioners reward for voting overwhelmingly Conservative, indeed more so than private sector workers.
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
"taxes".
Do you have a time machine, or are you a member of one of those weird linguistic groups which has no past or present tense?
Whacking fib there. Been a huge fib for all of 12 years. Apart from minor twiddles in Wales.
Comments
This game is boring.
Bloody good job I reckon.
Had a great evening in a bar there teaching the locals "bottoms up"....
And there was one tribal group who used to wear a distinctive red bobble hat!
Fucking whoppee. Only took them a month.
Hence the threshold at 10k miles.
That was one of the least dominant 2-0 halves I've ever seen.
Bellingham was immense.
It covers wear and tear too.
It covers wear and tear too. Bellingham made that goal.
I'll repeat what I've said before: the threat from AI does not come from AI itself. It comes from idiots believing that AI is more capable than it really is, and therefore putting it in charge of things that really matter.
"Computer says yes."
Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote
The Tories picked Boris who was an election winner. You claimed they lost interest in governing by making him leader.
That’s not true given he won a thumping majority.
It would be nice if there were a party who would champion the interests of the private sector. I'd vote for it.
Sadly, there never has been.
He'd have made the occasional League Cup appearance for United.
He, as leader, had no interest in governing.
He wanted to be PM. He didn't want to do the job of PM.
What have they done with their "thumping" majority?
The only country in the World to impose economic sanctions on themselves, followed by economic meltdown and much higher taxes.
Oh, wait, they "took back control" of our borders, resulting in thousands more channel migrants.
They haven't a fucking clue how to govern. Perhaps because all of the Tories who knew how to do it were expelled.
By BoZo...
As I said.
Do you have a time machine, or are you a member of one of those weird linguistic groups which has no past or present tense?
Whacking fib there. Been a huge fib for all of 12 years. Apart from minor twiddles in Wales.
Edit: this is a direct quote from your post, in case you edit it without admitting it. "Just as Labour taxes private sector workers more to fund its public sector client vote"
We look a good side when in front.
Not an option now.
He won a thumping majority.
He won.