When oil was previously ~£60 per barrel petrol prices were ~£1.43 per litre. Today they are ~£1.57 per litre. Neither the government nor opposition gives a shit about it and it is a huge source of our continued high inflation environment. Plus hitting forecourts is such an easy win for either party, everyone loathes them.
What was the pound/dollar exchange rate at that time? Serious question.
Hasn't Max factored that in by pricing oil in pounds?
You know, I hadn't actually spotted that. So used to seeing oil priced in dollars I filled in the blanks. So presumably yes!
No - max is deliberately misleading by implying it’s the petrol stations.
It’s entirely down to the FX change - their costs are in dollars which have gone up in pound terms (ie the pound is weaker). The balance is operating costs & margin plus excise and VAT all priced in pounds
But I'm pricing in sterling, not dollars. When oil was last ~$73 per barrel petrol prices were £1.30 per litre, I'm not suggesting they should be that low. It absolutely is the petrol stations and supermarkets. Only a fool would pretend otherwise.
‘The emotions of Britishness and being English, a response to David Mitchell’
Some say that England requires no representative, accountable, democractic institutions because the institutions of the British state are, in fact, de facto English. Mitchell alludes to this Anglo-centric mindset when he informs us that “when Palmerston said "English" he meant British”. My challenge to Mitchell and other Brits who wish to save the Union is to imagine a new multi-national Britain that draws strength from its hybridity instead of riding rough-shod over the national identities of Britain by buying into these Anglo-centric, Anglo-British notions of Britishness.
… if devolution has failed to ‘kill nationalism stone dead’, as George Robertson prophesised, it is partly because it has heightened the perception that Britain is the English State by proxy, and devolution merely an exercise in post-imperial imperialism.
Today when the public hears British politicians refer to ‘our country’ or ‘our NHS’ it is reasonable to assume that they are talking about England or the NHS in England
An old one but actually very timely at present given recent proposals from Labour and the Tory reactions, and the ensuing discussions on PB re an English Pmt.
'For the sake of Britain the English need to be allowed to be English and British instead of Anglo-British; a dual identity rather than a conjoined, conflated identity. “The nationalism that urgently needs definition is Englishness”, says Madeleine Bunting. If the Anglo-British nationalism of Blair, Brown and Cameron can be regarded as an English nationalism by proxy, then I agree with her completely. If the way to a new understanding of British identity is to forge a Little England nationalism that replaces the Anglo-British nationalism of a faded imperial power, then yes, let’s reimagine Britain as a multinational, consensual, union of partner nations with an English nationalism that complements the nationalisms of Scotland and Wales. Only a looser – possibly federal – idea of Britain, in which Scotland and Wales are equal partners instead of semi-autonomous parts of Greater England, will allow the nations to sit comfortably in Union.
The alternative is to force Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and increasingly English nationalists (see below), to choose between their national identities and their British identity.'
One obstacle to that may be the progressive, multicultural strain of Britishness (difficult to entertain when you see how it’s expressed on the streets of Glasgow but nevertheless..) which loves the non specific capaciousness of a British identity. I was struck by Edward Enninful on Desert Island Discs just now and his love & gratitude towards Britain, I wonder if he’d welcome being asked to think hard about his Englishness? Identity is a slippery and mercurial thing.
Mr. Dickson, I'm not persuaded Reform will be a big deal come the GE. But if they are it could have a massive impact. In 2015, Farage's strength took a lot of votes in Labour seats and helped Cameron to a surprise majority.
Reform's opinion poll ratings MAY be spurious.
Pre the Chester by-election, a local website carried out a poll, which gave Reform 18% of the vote. The real election gave them 2.7%. For which there may be a common-sense explanation.
In a UK full of sleaze fears about politicians, a pollster asks which of the following parties you'll vote for, and many respondents may choose a label that sounds like it wants reform - something few disagree with. Come a real election, though, and they've got a choice between Jeanie Someone no-one's ever heard of, inarticulately spouting policies dreamt up by an unaccountable Putin-supporting TV pundit and Green, Tory, Labour and LibDem candidates, each lucidly arguing for at least some policies you rather like.
Among voters as a whole, little choice: the real politicians win. Question only disgruntled Tory members, though - and it wouldn't be surprising if the pro-Reform Party respondents knew what the Farageists meant and wanted it.
So Tories, erroneously, are probably putting far more trust in opinion polls than they would if they went out and talked to voters - which Tories rarely do these days because, with a collapsing activist base, they have to limit their human contacts to keeping disgruntled Tories from defecting.
I agree with this. I'm a politics geek and I don't give Reform a moment's thought. I doubt most "normal" voters know who they are or what they stand for. The Chester by-election was interesting in that if national polling was to be believed, then Green, LD and Reform should have all been quite close together. In practice the LD candidate was well ahead of the others, in a seat where they had no chance and in other similar by-elections have been squeezed.
Unless, of course, Farage un-retires again then all bets are off.
Lol, why have England picked three quicks on this pitch?
Probably just a misreading of the pitch, or possibly just the balance of the attack. Egland have spin options outside of Leach and Jacks - on a turning pitch Root can be dangerous (47 wickets says yes).
Worst misreading of a pitch since Calcutta 1993 when India picked three front line spinners and England picked four seamers/fast bowlers.
When oil was previously ~£60 per barrel petrol prices were ~£1.43 per litre. Today they are ~£1.57 per litre. Neither the government nor opposition gives a shit about it and it is a huge source of our continued high inflation environment. Plus hitting forecourts is such an easy win for either party, everyone loathes them.
What was the pound/dollar exchange rate at that time? Serious question.
Hasn't Max factored that in by pricing oil in pounds?
You know, I hadn't actually spotted that. So used to seeing oil priced in dollars I filled in the blanks. So presumably yes!
No - max is deliberately misleading by implying it’s the petrol stations.
It’s entirely down to the FX change - their costs are in dollars which have gone up in pound terms (ie the pound is weaker). The balance is operating costs & margin plus excise and VAT all priced in pounds
Quoting the oil price in pounds surely adjusts for exchange rates.
When oil was previously ~£60 per barrel petrol prices were ~£1.43 per litre. Today they are ~£1.57 per litre. Neither the government nor opposition gives a shit about it and it is a huge source of our continued high inflation environment. Plus hitting forecourts is such an easy win for either party, everyone loathes them.
What was the pound/dollar exchange rate at that time? Serious question.
Hasn't Max factored that in by pricing oil in pounds?
You know, I hadn't actually spotted that. So used to seeing oil priced in dollars I filled in the blanks. So presumably yes!
No - max is deliberately misleading by implying it’s the petrol stations.
It’s entirely down to the FX change - their costs are in dollars which have gone up in pound terms (ie the pound is weaker). The balance is operating costs & margin plus excise and VAT all priced in pounds
Quoting the oil price in pounds surely adjusts for exchange rates.
Indeed, and in fact I know I'm right because the CMA has finally opened up an investigation into the seeming lack of price competition in the sector. They've been slow to do it because it was their botched investigation of the Asda buyout which has resulted in this situation.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
Exactly this. Whilst people are assuming some swingback in the Tory vote share because that has happened before, what are the fundamental conditions (e.g. economic) that cause that to happen? If some market predictions are right, we will be paying continued high energy costs over the winter of 23/24 just before a likely election.
Here's the graph that implies that the World Of Pain for the Conservatives has barely started;
2008-2010, real household incomes were roughly flat. The government lost, but they stopped the other lot getting a majority.
2013-2015, there was a bit of a boomlet in real household incomes. The Conservatives turned a minority into a majority.
Now look at what's incoming for the next couple of years. And a fair bit of it is baked in now. To me, that points to a Conservative loss. And beyond a certian point, that leads to a Labour win, no matter how uninspiring Boring Old Starmer is.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
There is a difference between 1997 and now - then, Tony Blair was popular and had a plan of what to do after winning the election. Sir Keir isn't and doesn't.
Indeed, I agree with this but Major's government was also vastly better than this one, and Major himself was also personally popular even if everyone had had enough of the bickering, infighting and sleaze. Anyway, Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. I'm just thinking of how things might change between now and an election, before there will be some inevitable swingback to the Tories in the final 6 months or so.
When oil was previously ~£60 per barrel petrol prices were ~£1.43 per litre. Today they are ~£1.57 per litre. Neither the government nor opposition gives a shit about it and it is a huge source of our continued high inflation environment. Plus hitting forecourts is such an easy win for either party, everyone loathes them.
What was the pound/dollar exchange rate at that time? Serious question.
Hasn't Max factored that in by pricing oil in pounds?
You know, I hadn't actually spotted that. So used to seeing oil priced in dollars I filled in the blanks. So presumably yes!
No - max is deliberately misleading by implying it’s the petrol stations.
It’s entirely down to the FX change - their costs are in dollars which have gone up in pound terms (ie the pound is weaker). The balance is operating costs & margin plus excise and VAT all priced in pounds
But I'm pricing in sterling, not dollars. When oil was last ~$73 per barrel petrol prices were £1.30 per litre, I'm not suggesting they should be that low. It absolutely is the petrol stations and supermarkets. Only a fool would pretend otherwise.
Isnt it down to supermarkets used to use low petrol prices as a way to bring in customers, hence they were nearly all the cheapest places to get petrol. Now with supermarkets struggling with loads of inflation on their product range they are looking to make more money from their petrol so they can hide some of the inflation in store.
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
Exactly this. Whilst people are assuming some swingback in the Tory vote share because that has happened before, what are the fundamental conditions (e.g. economic) that cause that to happen? If some market predictions are right, we will be paying continued high energy costs over the winter of 23/24 just before a likely election.
Here's the graph that implies that the World Of Pain for the Conservatives has barely started;
2008-2010, real household incomes were roughly flat. The government lost, but they stopped the other lot getting a majority.
2013-2015, there was a bit of a boomlet in real household incomes. The Conservatives turned a minority into a majority.
Now look at what's incoming for the next couple of years. And a fair bit of it is baked in now. To me, that points to a Conservative loss. And beyond a certian point, that leads to a Labour win, no matter how uninspiring Boring Old Starmer is.
It is not just the personal finance issues but also public services. 7m people are waiting for NHS treatment. In 2 years time even if that number comes down a bit, the people will be different so you might have a cumulative 10-12m people who have suffered long waiting times. They will be skewed to older and Tory voters.
I don't see the situation improving much for the Tories, who have nothing to offer bar don't let the other lot have a go.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
to follow up: "The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
Could well be a Simpson's Paradox. You have to look at disaggregated data to see what's really going on.
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
Exactly this. Whilst people are assuming some swingback in the Tory vote share because that has happened before, what are the fundamental conditions (e.g. economic) that cause that to happen? If some market predictions are right, we will be paying continued high energy costs over the winter of 23/24 just before a likely election.
Here's the graph that implies that the World Of Pain for the Conservatives has barely started;
2008-2010, real household incomes were roughly flat. The government lost, but they stopped the other lot getting a majority.
2013-2015, there was a bit of a boomlet in real household incomes. The Conservatives turned a minority into a majority.
Now look at what's incoming for the next couple of years. And a fair bit of it is baked in now. To me, that points to a Conservative loss. And beyond a certian point, that leads to a Labour win, no matter how uninspiring Boring Old Starmer is.
It is not just the personal finance issues but also public services. 7m people are waiting for NHS treatment. In 2 years time even if that number comes down a bit, the people will be different so you might have a cumulative 10-12m people who have suffered long waiting times. They will be skewed to older and Tory voters.
I don't see the situation improving much for the Tories, who have nothing to offer bar don't let the other lot have a go.
Much like 1997, then. The message then was "Britain is booming. Don't let Labour blow it." There were lots of reasons that didn't work, but one of them was the sense that the public services were knackered. Hence Blair's approach of "Make a tangible improvement in this specific popular thing by taxing or cutting funding for this unpopular thing."
Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the chances of Britain Booming in 2024 are not good.
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
There is a difference between 1997 and now - then, Tony Blair was popular and had a plan of what to do after winning the election. Sir Keir isn't and doesn't.
Indeed, I agree with this but Major's government was also vastly better than this one, and Major himself was also personally popular even if everyone had had enough of the bickering, infighting and sleaze. Anyway, Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. I'm just thinking of how things might change between now and an election, before there will be some inevitable swingback to the Tories in the final 6 months or so.
You make a really important point, that Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. Labour has huge poll leads despite, not because of, Starmer being seen as somewhat dull. It isn't going to be a revelation to anybody at the next GE that Starmer doesn't have the charisma of that chap elected as PM in 2019.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
Statistical significance is surely a property of a sample, the property being that it tells us something useful about the whole population. There is no sampling going on here.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
to follow up: "The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
So it's what I said, 1037 men getting sacked vs 630 women from engineering. I know you have a hate boner for anything Elon Musk and you seem to want to suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege, yet I'm not sure this is a big deal or statistically significant enough to say that it was somehow sexist or targeted at Twitter's women employees.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
Statistical significance is surely a property of a sample, the property being that it tells us something useful about the whole population. There is no sampling going on here.
I was going to pop up to say this, and anyway it will feel significant enough to those who've been binned off.
The female bias doesn't surprise me, and I'd be interested in how many of them (and the men too) have such unfortunate distractions as, I dunno, having children and actually wanted their kids to know who they are instead of literally living at work? At least the Elon Jrs will see their dad in the papers.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
I mean really, if a generally competent looking and inoffensive opposition manages to lose against surely the most vacuous and chaotic government in living memory in 2024 then Labour might as well pack up and go home.
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
There is a difference between 1997 and now - then, Tony Blair was popular and had a plan of what to do after winning the election. Sir Keir isn't and doesn't.
Indeed, I agree with this but Major's government was also vastly better than this one, and Major himself was also personally popular even if everyone had had enough of the bickering, infighting and sleaze. Anyway, Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. I'm just thinking of how things might change between now and an election, before there will be some inevitable swingback to the Tories in the final 6 months or so.
You make a really important point, that Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. Labour has huge poll leads despite, not because of, Starmer being seen as somewhat dull. It isn't going to be a revelation to anybody at the next GE that Starmer doesn't have the charisma of that chap elected as PM in 2019.
Whilst that's true, midterm opinion polls always show support higher for the opposition than it can safely rely on as being solid. When it comes to the run up to the election, people switch from "protest vote" to "choose a government" - this is why swingback happens.
I'm not claiming it'll be enough to keep the Tories as largest party. But with Sir Keir playing what our American friends in the NFL call a "prevent defense" - focused primarily on making no mistakes - he's not going to get 400+ seats like the polls currently indicate.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
to follow up: "The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
So it's what I said, 1037 men getting sacked vs 630 women from engineering. I know you have a hate boner for anything Elon Musk and you seem to want to suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege, yet I'm not sure this is a big deal or statistically significant enough to say that it was somehow sexist or targeted at Twitter's women employees.
LOL. " suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege"
Sweden out, Japan in. UK - Italy - Sweden never made any sense due to lack of finances and industrial base.
France are pulling Saudi into FCAS for similar reasons although the Saudis contribute less than nothing on the technology front.
France would have preferred to partner with the UK because that's the best strategic fit. Germany would have preferred to partner with the UK because that's the best industrial fit. UK would have preferred to partner with nobody because BAE don't believe anybody else knows how to build combat aircraft or radar.
The last 100% British designed and built combat aircraft rolled off the line in October 1977. Buccaneer XZ432. (Hawk 200 doesn't count obviously.)
I can understand Mike's argument, particularly without a recovery in Scotland Labour has a steep mountain to climb. And I'm sure a lot of the current ex-Tory don't knows in polling will turn out and vote on the day after all.
However, I agree with @Heathener that we are seeing a sea-change in public opinion, and we are heading for a 1997-style 'Get Rid Of Them' election. At the moment polling shows the Tories in the upper 20s, and that's now while Sunak is having his honeymoon and before all the bad news hits:
Fuel bills are yet to land - and if this is a cold winter it will be even worse
There will be a long winter of strikes affecting public services, which all need massive investment not cuts
Probably two rounds of stealth tax increases
Inflation eating away at people's incomes
A sense that the government is out of control of things it should be on top of, e.g. migration, justice system
None of those things are going to improve the Tories's standing in the polls. How low can they go?
The only question in my mind is how much of the core Tory vote is sufficiently well concentrated in the safe non-urban seats across the south for them to continue to withstand the oncoming deluge in numbers. I think they probably do, which is a shame because I think that any seat total above 0 will be entirely undeserved.
There is a difference between 1997 and now - then, Tony Blair was popular and had a plan of what to do after winning the election. Sir Keir isn't and doesn't.
Indeed, I agree with this but Major's government was also vastly better than this one, and Major himself was also personally popular even if everyone had had enough of the bickering, infighting and sleaze. Anyway, Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. I'm just thinking of how things might change between now and an election, before there will be some inevitable swingback to the Tories in the final 6 months or so.
You make a really important point, that Starmer's lacklustre personality is already reflected in current polling. Labour has huge poll leads despite, not because of, Starmer being seen as somewhat dull. It isn't going to be a revelation to anybody at the next GE that Starmer doesn't have the charisma of that chap elected as PM in 2019.
Whilst that's true, midterm opinion polls always show support higher for the opposition than it can safely rely on as being solid. When it comes to the run up to the election, people switch from "protest vote" to "choose a government" - this is why swingback happens.
I'm not claiming it'll be enough to keep the Tories as largest party. But with Sir Keir playing what our American friends in the NFL call a "prevent defense" - focused primarily on making no mistakes - he's not going to get 400+ seats like the polls currently indicate.
I don't think anybody on here (well, maybe one) regards Labour's current 20+ poll leads as 'solid'. The question is whether it stays at above, say, 10+ or goes below that. All I'm saying is that the revelation that Starmer is a bit dull is hardly going to be a game changer.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
Lol, why have England picked three quicks on this pitch?
Probably just a misreading of the pitch, or possibly just the balance of the attack. Egland have spin options outside of Leach and Jacks - on a turning pitch Root can be dangerous (47 wickets says yes).
Worst misreading of a pitch since Calcutta 1993 when India picked three front line spinners and England picked four seamers/fast bowlers.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
Does that mean it couldn't find the answer on Wikipedia?
"The new PM is still finding his feet" I'd hope he'd have found them by now, they're not far away from his bonce. His voice is a bit squeaky too, touch of the Ed Milibands about him.
Using latest Techne and PP polling in the EMA gives the Tories 109 seats and Labour a 254 majority (Blair got 179 majority in 1997).
For @HYFUD, transferring all the 5.9% from Reform UK to the Tories gives the Tories 185 seats and Labour a comfortable 114 majority.
If you then transfer say half the Green share to Labour, then the Tories get 160 seats and Labour a 164 overall majority - approaching the Blair result in 1997.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
Chatbot's plodding bathos sent me off in search of Daisy Ashford. She married at the age of 38 and had four children (so I discover), eventually dying at 90. The Young Visiters was the summit of her achievement. Peaking too soon is a devastating setback, as many here can no doubt confirm.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
Statistical significance is surely a property of a sample, the property being that it tells us something useful about the whole population. There is no sampling going on here.
In this context, you would view it as a sample from all the possible ways of sacking that many people in total, and see if that or a larger disparity was found in 5% (or whatever) of the possibilities.
The coal mine is another example, along with the shenanigans around the NIP, of the conservative government indulging in projects that impair the UK’s soft power and brand value way more than any conceivable financial benefit.
The mine will be tiny, produce mediocre coal and probably have a foreshortened useful economic life as met coal gets phased out of steel production in the next couple of decades. Makes no economic sense. Meanwhile - completely out of proportion to any environmental impact of the mine itself - it gives every country under pressure to reduce coal use the opportunity to point and shout hypocrite, and carry on as before.
The national brand wrecking equivalent of a brand like John Lewis cutting costs by using sweatshop child labour for its clothing.
It has zero impact. It will make no difference to what China or the US actually do
It has an impact. It makes people angry. The tories are shitting on our international reputation, the climate, and our industrial innovation for the sake of making bold decisions supposedly in the national interest.
Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, said: “This is a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry, which is not waiting for more coal as there is enough on the free market available. The British steel industry needs green investment in electric arc furnaces and hydrogen to protect jobs and make the UK competitive.”
The tories have overseen a comparative drop in UK competitiveness since 2010. Undermining productivity year after year. They are the enemy within.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
AI turns out to be a bit woke; does anyone want to break it to Leon?
Starmer doesn't need to spend a cent discovering what voters think of the Tories but lots to discover what they might find attractive if offered it by Labour. There's a whopping majority out there if he gets his research right.
The Tories problem is that they're glued to several events and policies that can't be undone. They've had corruption and malfeasance on a grand scale by Johnson. They've shown incompetence beyond comprehension in their selection of Truss. The collapse in the public finances are being blamed on that alone. Public Services are seen to be functioning at a level not seen since records began .......
......Then there's Brexit. Now widely recognised as an irreversible national calamity which has cost the country a fortune and for which the Tories are solely responsible
Turning an inevitable Labour victory into a rout shouldn't be out of their sights. Starmer is becoming better by the day and more trusted even more likable. His backroom team are getting better known and looking reasonably competent.
Meanwhile his policies are being developed by some very able professionals and his research department are getting it together well.....
Whether it'll be a victory or an annihilation is difficult to tell. The braver Starmer chooses to be the better chance of a wipeout
but at least he reaches a startling and original conclusion, one which no PBer will ever have thought before:
"one thing is abundantly clear: winter is coming and it looks set to have far-reaching consequences not just for Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party but British politics more generally."
Starmer doesn't need to spend a cent discovering what voters think of the Tories but lots to discover what they might find attractive if offered it by Labour. There's a whopping majority out there if he gets his research right.
The Tories problem is that they're glued to several events and policies that can't be undone. They've had corruption and malfeasance on a grand scale by Johnson. They've shown incompetence beyond comprehension in their selection of Truss. The collapse in the public finances are being blamed on that alone. Public Services are seen to be functioning at a level not seen since records began .......
......Then there's Brexit. Now widely recognised as an irreversible national calamity which has cost the country a fortune and for which the Tories are solely responsible
Turning an inevitable Labour victory into a rout shouldn't be out of their sights. Starmer is becoming better by the day and more trusted even more likable. His backroom team are getting better known and looking reasonably competent.
Meanwhile his policies are being developed by some very able professionals and his research department are getting it together well.....
Whether it'll be a victory or an annihilation is difficult to tell. The braver Starmer chooses to be the better chance of a wipeout
But Brave Sir Keir is being about as brave as Brave Sir Robin - and we're assured by Labour supporters here that this is intentional.
Using latest Techne and PP polling in the EMA gives the Tories 109 seats and Labour a 254 majority (Blair got 179 majority in 1997).
For @HYFUD, transferring all the 5.9% from Reform UK to the Tories gives the Tories 185 seats and Labour a comfortable 114 majority.
If you then transfer say half the Green share to Labour, then the Tories get 160 seats and Labour a 164 overall majority - approaching the Blair result in 1997.
And if you assume even a wee bit of tactical voting between Lib Dem and Labour the Tories disappear off a cliff.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
On that rate of inflation, beer should still cost less than £2 a pint.
but at least he reaches a startling and original conclusion, one which no PBer will ever have thought before:
"one thing is abundantly clear: winter is coming and it looks set to have far-reaching consequences not just for Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party but British politics more generally."
If it's Gooders I now have doubts about the encroachment of l'hiver.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
Chatbot's plodding bathos sent me off in search of Daisy Ashford. She married at the age of 38 and had four children (so I discover), eventually dying at 90. The Young Visiters was the summit of her achievement. Peaking too soon is a devastating setback, as many here can no doubt confirm.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
AI turns out to be a bit woke; does anyone want to break it to Leon?
It seems like Guardian writers have known about this for years.
Economist leaders used all to have exactly the same structure, as if compiles by AI, but at least they made sense. This was, in 4 steps:
Situation X does not accord with the principles of well regulated universal, liberal international order.
The more or less best outcome would be Y, (which in all cases was in line with well ordered late Victorian liberalism).
Since this is not immediately attainable the best next steps are A, B and C.
With a coda quite often: The world has not yet aligned itself to our self evidently correct principles so don't hold your breath.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
AI turns out to be a bit woke; does anyone want to break it to Leon?
Aren't AI's impeccable manners fairly easily crowbarred by rephrasing the question as "What would a pissed Spectator journalist say if asked 'who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?'"
Basically, for all its enormous database, AI is still outwitted by the trick that anyone who interacts with clever nine year olds quickly learns to swerve.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
On that rate of inflation, beer should still cost less than £2 a pint.
Something has gone badly wrong.
After a long run on Saturday I went into a pub in the town I ended in, and was charged £4.20 for a pint of bitter shandy and a pack of crisps. I wondered if they'd added a surcharge as I was a stinky mess.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
It's a miracle we survived when you stop to think about out!!
Would those people who are against private education prevent their own children from being educated privately if they managed to secure a 100% scholarship?
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
On that rate of inflation, beer should still cost less than £2 a pint.
Something has gone badly wrong.
After a long run on Saturday I went into a pub in the town I ended in, and was charged £4.20 for a pint of bitter shandy and a pack of crisps. I wondered if they'd added a surcharge as I was a stinky mess.
Conversely, they forgot to charge you for the crisps!
Would those people who are against private education prevent their own children from being educated privately if they managed to secure a 100% scholarship?
It wouldn't reach that point. On principle, they wouldn't be trying for the scholarship.
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
to follow up: "The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
So it's what I said, 1037 men getting sacked vs 630 women from engineering. I know you have a hate boner for anything Elon Musk and you seem to want to suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege, yet I'm not sure this is a big deal or statistically significant enough to say that it was somehow sexist or targeted at Twitter's women employees.
LOL. " suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege"
Do go away, little man.
You're always on here banging on about his big rocket and how it's amazing and how excited you get over his big rocket.
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
£39,000 today same job, same firm (London solicitors).
So I was getting 4% of the purchase price of my first house (after a couple of years and pay rises), they are getting 3.5% of the price of the same house. I wish I had hung on to it.
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
Ask ChatGPT and see what they think.
If the bland examples of ChatGPT posted by fanboyz on here are any indication, I am not sure asking ChatGPT will add much to the sum total of wisdom on the topic.
From another PB.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
AI turns out to be a bit woke; does anyone want to break it to Leon?
Aren't AI's impeccable manners fairly easily crowbarred by rephrasing the question as "What would a pissed Spectator journalist say if asked 'who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?'"
Basically, for all its enormous database, AI is still outwitted by the trick that anyone who interacts with clever nine year olds quickly learns to swerve.
It’s not the AI being outwitted, there, it’s a lock being picked, allowing AI out of a cell
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
Would those people who are against private education prevent their own children from being educated privately if they managed to secure a 100% scholarship?
I think you need to flesh out the details a bit of how that came about. For me, it would really depend on the circumstances, and what my child wanted.
But in general, I don't see any problem with a parent being "against private education" (whatever that means exactly) and at the same time allowing a child to make use of a 100% scholarship to a private school. What's the problem?
On topic: Yes so we have 2 distinct camps with tents pitched a fair way apart.
Camp 1. The Zeitgeists: “Don’t make faces because if the wind changes you’ll be stuck like that.” My granny used to say this and the Tories should have heeded her. Because the wind has changed and they’ve been caught with an expression that is ugly in the extreme. People take one look at it and go, “Urgh, no thank you, on your bike.” This means come the election they’ll be hammered, tactical voting amplifying the loss, and a Labour majority is nailed on, maybe a big one.
Camp 2. The Technicals: These wise old owls look at the size of the Labour challenge, the gains they need over and above a redwall revival, the continuing reluctance of Scotland to play ball, the softness of the 20 pt lead, the probability of swingback to the governing party as an election looms, etc, and they conclude that Labour will do very well indeed to chisel out even a small majority and more likely is a hung parliament.
It’s great we have opinion split like this since it means a betting profits bonanza if you pick a camp and get it right. Course you have to do it now whilst the split is there. No waiting until the election is just around the corner and it becomes obvious (at cramped odds) which is the right play.
My problem is I can’t quite make my mind up. I think I’m a Zeitgeist but not with enough gusto to lump on. I’m also stuck with a bad short of Lab majority @ 6 from back when I thought it was close to impossible. Before the Tory implosion. Before the wind changed.
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
That's probably not statistically significant, the actual numbers will be loads more men getting sacked.
In a company Twitter's size? Surely it'd be difficult for it not to be statistically significant (unless they only employed a handful of women in engineering role)?
to follow up: "The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
So it's what I said, 1037 men getting sacked vs 630 women from engineering. I know you have a hate boner for anything Elon Musk and you seem to want to suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege, yet I'm not sure this is a big deal or statistically significant enough to say that it was somehow sexist or targeted at Twitter's women employees.
LOL. " suck Bezos' balls and pay him for the privilege"
Do go away, little man.
You're always on here banging on about his big rocket and how it's amazing and how excited you get over his big rocket.
Really? When have I 'banged on about it' ?
My position is that a sustainable presence of humanity in space needs two or three very heavy-lift launchers. I'm therefore keen on (currently) SLS, SH/SS and New Glenn. I'm also somewhat more bearish on SH/SS than some on here, but will defend New Glenn against some of the more SpaceX-biased criticisms.
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
Worth £16k today, so not a bad starting salary and you'd have to work 45 hours at the 18-20yo minimum wage to get it.
On that rate of inflation, beer should still cost less than £2 a pint.
Something has gone badly wrong.
In the early 60s (till 1965) stamps were 3d. To buy 80 cost exactly £1. Now £54, as discovered yesterday. (Ist class would be £76).
Would those people who are against private education prevent their own children from being educated privately if they managed to secure a 100% scholarship?
It wouldn't reach that point. On principle, they wouldn't be trying for the scholarship.
The practice in this area is for the independent school to host sports days for local primary schools and then to approach the parents of high performing athletes with the offer of a sports scholarship… thus underpinning charitable credentials and sporting prowess whilst denying the local state school tens of thousands in funding…
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
My Sub Lt's salary in 1989 was about £8,900 (as far as I can remember, it certainly wasn't much more). I prevailed upon Midland Bank to lend me 15 grand to buy a car. They knocked me back but my (RAF) CO wrote them a letter about what a fine young officer Sub Lt Dura was and they changed their mind. To this day, I suspect Freemasonry was involved.
I bought a Mk.2 GTI 16V which I wrote off almost immediately but still had to pay for the fucking thing for years.
Been told of members of both the Scottish and Westminster Parliament across, now, three parties refusing to discuss GRA reform, because they disagree with the constituent about it? Is this common, MSPs/MPs refusing to meet constituents because they disagree on something?
They represent all their constituents, not just the ones they agree with.
According to the regulations they don't have to take casework from people they disagree with.
Even for MPs?
It makes sense for MSPs - after all, they have PR so they only represent their own voters.
Yes, MPs and their staff have no legal requirement to assist or even respond to their constituents.
This is obviously a poor setup considering that MPs are now glorified untrained caseworkers, and will be contacted by thousands of people a month involving some very complicated problems.
All South Koreans to become younger as traditional age system scrapped ... Koreans are deemed to be a year old when born and a year is added every 1 January. It’s this age most commonly cited by Koreans in everyday life.
A separate system also exists for conscription purposes or calculating the legal age to drink alcohol and smoke, in which a person’s age is calculated from zero at birth and a year is added on 1 January.
So someone born on 31 December turned 2 the next day? Confusing.
Personally I'm in favour of the new year reverting to sometime in March, end of winter. Yes, its unfair on the southern hemisphere, but we outnumber them.
I always wanted a thirteen month calendar system. 28 days x 13 = 364. Give one month an extra day and then ANOTHER one every four years to cover the leap year and that would be great.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
But changing our time and calendar system to something 'metric' seems like a good idea (but will never happen). How many days in a quarter? Depending on how you count it, could be anywhere between 89 and 92.
And don't get me started on the Gregorian calendar anyway. It's wrong. Not as bad as the Julian one, but still, won't we have a problem in 4000 years or so..... I'm thinking long term here....... doesn't it count the leap years wrong anyway?
1980 would feel like an alien planet. No mobile phones, no Internet, crap food, all cash or cheque payments, and few cash machines to get cash. It would feel virtually impossible to function.
We coped just fine. It helped being able to get 4 pints of beer and a bag of chips on the way home for less than £2.
And businesses still accepted cheques.
And my starting salary in 1985 was £5,600.
For younger readers, per year, not month.
My Sub Lt's salary in 1989 was about £8,900 (as far as I can remember, it certainly wasn't much more). I prevailed upon Midland Bank to lend me 15 grand to buy a car. They knocked me back but my (RAF) CO wrote them a letter about what a fine young officer Sub Lt Dura was and they changed their mind. To this day, I suspect Freemasonry was involved.
I bought a Mk.2 GTI 16V which I wrote off almost immediately but still had to pay for the fucking thing for years.
And the only thing you learned from that was how to part them out.
All South Koreans to become younger as traditional age system scrapped ... Koreans are deemed to be a year old when born and a year is added every 1 January. It’s this age most commonly cited by Koreans in everyday life.
A separate system also exists for conscription purposes or calculating the legal age to drink alcohol and smoke, in which a person’s age is calculated from zero at birth and a year is added on 1 January.
So someone born on 31 December turned 2 the next day? Confusing.
Personally I'm in favour of the new year reverting to sometime in March, end of winter. Yes, its unfair on the southern hemisphere, but we outnumber them.
I always wanted a thirteen month calendar system. 28 days x 13 = 364. Give one month an extra day and then ANOTHER one every four years to cover the leap year and that would be great.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
But changing our time and calendar system to something 'metric' seems like a good idea (but will never happen). How many days in a quarter? Depending on how you count it, could be anywhere between 89 and 92.
And don't get me started on the Gregorian calendar anyway. It's wrong. Not as bad as the Julian one, but still, won't we have a problem in 4000 years or so..... I'm thinking long term here....... doesn't it count the leap years wrong anyway?
Using latest Techne and PP polling in the EMA gives the Tories 109 seats and Labour a 254 majority (Blair got 179 majority in 1997).
For @HYFUD, transferring all the 5.9% from Reform UK to the Tories gives the Tories 185 seats and Labour a comfortable 114 majority.
If you then transfer say half the Green share to Labour, then the Tories get 160 seats and Labour a 164 overall majority - approaching the Blair result in 1997.
185 still more than 1997. As I said earlier Starmer's lead over Sunak is no larger than Cameron's was over Brown 2 years before the 2010 general election which produced a hung parliament.
Yougov in July 2008 for example had the Conservatives on 47% and Labour on just 25%
All South Koreans to become younger as traditional age system scrapped ... Koreans are deemed to be a year old when born and a year is added every 1 January. It’s this age most commonly cited by Koreans in everyday life.
A separate system also exists for conscription purposes or calculating the legal age to drink alcohol and smoke, in which a person’s age is calculated from zero at birth and a year is added on 1 January.
So someone born on 31 December turned 2 the next day? Confusing.
Personally I'm in favour of the new year reverting to sometime in March, end of winter. Yes, its unfair on the southern hemisphere, but we outnumber them.
I always wanted a thirteen month calendar system. 28 days x 13 = 364. Give one month an extra day and then ANOTHER one every four years to cover the leap year and that would be great.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
Would those people who are against private education prevent their own children from being educated privately if they managed to secure a 100% scholarship?
It wouldn't reach that point. On principle, they wouldn't be trying for the scholarship.
Quite right too, they shouldn't deprive non leftwing class warriors who are not ideologically opposed to private education and parental choice who are not rich but have bright children from that scholarship
All South Koreans to become younger as traditional age system scrapped ... Koreans are deemed to be a year old when born and a year is added every 1 January. It’s this age most commonly cited by Koreans in everyday life.
A separate system also exists for conscription purposes or calculating the legal age to drink alcohol and smoke, in which a person’s age is calculated from zero at birth and a year is added on 1 January.
So someone born on 31 December turned 2 the next day? Confusing.
Personally I'm in favour of the new year reverting to sometime in March, end of winter. Yes, its unfair on the southern hemisphere, but we outnumber them.
I always wanted a thirteen month calendar system. 28 days x 13 = 364. Give one month an extra day and then ANOTHER one every four years to cover the leap year and that would be great.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
But changing our time and calendar system to something 'metric' seems like a good idea (but will never happen). How many days in a quarter? Depending on how you count it, could be anywhere between 89 and 92.
And don't get me started on the Gregorian calendar anyway. It's wrong. Not as bad as the Julian one, but still, won't we have a problem in 4000 years or so..... I'm thinking long term here....... doesn't it count the leap years wrong anyway?
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Voters - stop wasting time on this and fix the boat migrants issue.
‘The emotions of Britishness and being English, a response to David Mitchell’
Some say that England requires no representative, accountable, democractic institutions because the institutions of the British state are, in fact, de facto English. Mitchell alludes to this Anglo-centric mindset when he informs us that “when Palmerston said "English" he meant British”. My challenge to Mitchell and other Brits who wish to save the Union is to imagine a new multi-national Britain that draws strength from its hybridity instead of riding rough-shod over the national identities of Britain by buying into these Anglo-centric, Anglo-British notions of Britishness.
… if devolution has failed to ‘kill nationalism stone dead’, as George Robertson prophesised, it is partly because it has heightened the perception that Britain is the English State by proxy, and devolution merely an exercise in post-imperial imperialism.
Today when the public hears British politicians refer to ‘our country’ or ‘our NHS’ it is reasonable to assume that they are talking about England or the NHS in England
An old one but actually very timely at present given recent proposals from Labour and the Tory reactions, and the ensuing discussions on PB re an English Pmt.
'For the sake of Britain the English need to be allowed to be English and British instead of Anglo-British; a dual identity rather than a conjoined, conflated identity. “The nationalism that urgently needs definition is Englishness”, says Madeleine Bunting. If the Anglo-British nationalism of Blair, Brown and Cameron can be regarded as an English nationalism by proxy, then I agree with her completely. If the way to a new understanding of British identity is to forge a Little England nationalism that replaces the Anglo-British nationalism of a faded imperial power, then yes, let’s reimagine Britain as a multinational, consensual, union of partner nations with an English nationalism that complements the nationalisms of Scotland and Wales. Only a looser – possibly federal – idea of Britain, in which Scotland and Wales are equal partners instead of semi-autonomous parts of Greater England, will allow the nations to sit comfortably in Union.
The alternative is to force Scottish and Welsh nationalists, and increasingly English nationalists (see below), to choose between their national identities and their British identity.'
One obstacle to that may be the progressive, multicultural strain of Britishness (difficult to entertain when you see how it’s expressed on the streets of Glasgow but nevertheless..) which loves the non specific capaciousness of a British identity. I was struck by Edward Enninful on Desert Island Discs just now and his love & gratitude towards Britain, I wonder if he’d welcome being asked to think hard about his Englishness? Identity is a slippery and mercurial thing.
I think national identity is unique to each individual. Speaking personally, I'm a Scot, but being British is the only national identity that's ever had any emotional resonance for me. I don't think my conception of Britishness is English to a degree that would conflict with being Scottish. I also think that the Commonwealth is still vital in fuelling the cultural content of Britishness. A Britain without people from the West Indies, India, Africa and Hong Kong would be a deeply alien place.
Obviously there are people who feel radically differently about all of the above. Trying to match up a state's boundaries to some imagined nation is a mug's game. I'm all for devolution, but we'd have been better to avoid aligning the boundaries with the historic nations. A Parliament covering Scotland and the North East would have had a better chance of providing decent government rather than wanging on about referendums.
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Will that include staring in persistent disbelief that she's a cabinet minister ?
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Meanwhile the public wants the police to catch burglars.
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Is it still a massive problem on (from) construction sites?
Lol, why have England picked three quicks on this pitch?
Probably just a misreading of the pitch, or possibly just the balance of the attack. Egland have spin options outside of Leach and Jacks - on a turning pitch Root can be dangerous (47 wickets says yes).
Worst misreading of a pitch since Calcutta 1993 when India picked three front line spinners and England picked four seamers/fast bowlers.
All South Koreans to become younger as traditional age system scrapped ... Koreans are deemed to be a year old when born and a year is added every 1 January. It’s this age most commonly cited by Koreans in everyday life.
A separate system also exists for conscription purposes or calculating the legal age to drink alcohol and smoke, in which a person’s age is calculated from zero at birth and a year is added on 1 January.
So someone born on 31 December turned 2 the next day? Confusing.
Personally I'm in favour of the new year reverting to sometime in March, end of winter. Yes, its unfair on the southern hemisphere, but we outnumber them.
I always wanted a thirteen month calendar system. 28 days x 13 = 364. Give one month an extra day and then ANOTHER one every four years to cover the leap year and that would be great.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
But changing our time and calendar system to something 'metric' seems like a good idea (but will never happen). How many days in a quarter? Depending on how you count it, could be anywhere between 89 and 92.
And don't get me started on the Gregorian calendar anyway. It's wrong. Not as bad as the Julian one, but still, won't we have a problem in 4000 years or so..... I'm thinking long term here....... doesn't it count the leap years wrong anyway?
Ethiopia has 13 months, 12 x 30 and one 5 or 6.
Indeed.
And todays date, in Ethiopia, is Thursday, 30/3/2015.
The only interesting thing I learned during my brief stint processing expense claims for BBC journalists was that receipts from Ethiopia were based on a very odd calendar that doesn’t make much sense.
The Conservatives have about 160 seats more than Labour in the House of Commons at the moment, yet they don't seem to be able to actually do anything useful with their majority. Bizarre. A zombie government.
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Voters - stop wasting time on this and fix the boat migrants issue.
Not to mention knife crime, street robberies,....
Criminialising wolf whistling is the sort of law Harriet Harperson would introduce, I didn't realise we had elected a labour government. If we are going to start criminalising all sort of arseholery, they better start building a lot of new prisons.
'Wolf-whistling, catcalling and staring persistently will be criminalised in England under plans backed by Home Secretary Suella Braverman.' https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Is it still a massive problem on (from) construction sites?
If Conservative voters have their way, there won't be any construction sites anyway.
Someone here mentioned a parent a few times who "didn't believe in homework".
Here (NRW) written homework generally isn't allowed in schools that have afternoon lessons, at least until the Oberstufe (final 3 years before Abitur, if taken).
Guardian have a longer read out on the Michelle Mone scandal. Seems a lot of buying and then selling of expensive houses, planes and yachts has been going on. I have a strong suspicion that taxpayer is not going to see much of that £200m coming back.
What I want to know is... is it illegal to lobby for a company to receive a contract, claim you had no direct interest in it, but actually be lying? It feels like it should be somehow... but not really sure.
Is there much future in piloted fighters now? Autonomous AI piloted drones, surely?
These are hybrid fighters, can be flown by a pilot and remotely.
The Tempest/Global Winning Superfighter will end being 100% crewed but is part of a larger 'system of systems' which is hypothesised to include a companion uncrewed component which does not exist yet. Though comparable systems; XQ-58 Valkyrie and MQ-28 Ghost Bat are in an advanced state of development in the US and Australia respectively.
Optionally crewed vehicles are always posited but have, thus far, never eventuated as they would up being very heavy, complex and expensive to use in uncrewed roles. Why not use a dedicated UAS?
There is a bit of a rethink going regarding uncrewed air systems at the moment. There is no doubt that they are going to form a large part of any air combat component but some issues have emerged with their increasing proliferation.
First, it's very hard to retain UAS crews for a long period. People will happily do flying tours in crewed aircraft for years on end (I did five consecutive flying tours) but people absolutely will not do that on UAS. A few years and that's it. They can't take any more of sitting in a Portacabin, eating Pringles and incinerating strangers on motorbikes in the desert with a Hellfire.
Second, UAS need a lot of crew. Even a medium weight system like MQ-9 needs a full mission creew and a full recovery crew - four people. This makes the retention problem above even more serious. A large UAS force has to recruit and train in large numbers on a constant basis. The RAF have ran into trouble with this and have resorted to using American mercenaries, sorry contractors, as the in-theatre recovery element for MQ-9.
Guardian have a longer read out on the Michelle Mone scandal. Seems a lot of buying and then selling of expensive houses, planes and yachts has been going on. I have a strong suspicion that taxpayer is not going to see much of that £200m coming back.
What I want to know is... is it illegal to lobby for a company to receive a contract, claim you had no direct interest in it, but actually be lying? It feels like it should be somehow... but not really sure.
Obtaining money by deception is a bit frowned on in the Theft Act.
Someone here mentioned a parent a few times who "didn't believe in homework".
Here (NRW) written homework generally isn't allowed in schools that have afternoon lessons, at least until the Oberstufe (final 3 years before Abitur, if taken).
That was me; the mother of another child said it to me. TBF, the school gives very little homework (one small sheet of maths a week; they're cramming on times tables for the year 4 multiplication Test. The homework I was referring to was the stuff he does with me at home.
Comments
Unless, of course, Farage un-retires again then all bets are off.
2008-2010, real household incomes were roughly flat. The government lost, but they stopped the other lot getting a majority.
2013-2015, there was a bit of a boomlet in real household incomes. The Conservatives turned a minority into a majority.
Now look at what's incoming for the next couple of years. And a fair bit of it is baked in now. To me, that points to a Conservative loss. And beyond a certian point, that leads to a Labour win, no matter how uninspiring Boring Old Starmer is.
I don't see the situation improving much for the Tories, who have nothing to offer bar don't let the other lot have a go.
"The lawsuit very specifically notes that Twitter had 2,234 female and 2,900 male employees, but 57% of the women were laid off vs 47% of the male employees. ...
Even if you restrict to engineering, the count was 1,003 to 2,150, but the skew was even worse at 630 vs 1,037 laid off; this presents a 63% female vs 48% male engineering employees being laid off."
Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the chances of Britain Booming in 2024 are not good.
The female bias doesn't surprise me, and I'd be interested in how many of them (and the men too) have such unfortunate distractions as, I dunno, having children and actually wanted their kids to know who they are instead of literally living at work? At least the Elon Jrs will see their dad in the papers.
As everyone has been messing about with ChatGPT bot this week, getting the AI to ponder all sorts of topics, we figured we should see what it made of the perennial question: who would win in a fight between a baboon and a badger?
Its answer? "It is not appropriate to encourage or glorify violence, particularly between animals. Both baboons and badgers are fascinating creatures with their own unique characteristics and behaviors. It is important to respect and appreciate them for who they are, rather than imagining them engaging in violent confrontations."
The future is fucking square.
I'm not claiming it'll be enough to keep the Tories as largest party. But with Sir Keir playing what our American friends in the NFL call a "prevent defense" - focused primarily on making no mistakes - he's not going to get 400+ seats like the polls currently indicate.
Do go away, little man.
France are pulling Saudi into FCAS for similar reasons although the Saudis contribute less than nothing on the technology front.
France would have preferred to partner with the UK because that's the best strategic fit. Germany would have preferred to partner with the UK because that's the best industrial fit. UK would have preferred to partner with nobody because BAE don't believe anybody else knows how to build combat aircraft or radar.
The last 100% British designed and built combat aircraft rolled off the line in October 1977. Buccaneer XZ432. (Hawk 200 doesn't count obviously.)
For younger readers, per year, not month.
His voice is a bit squeaky too, touch of the Ed Milibands about him.
For @HYFUD, transferring all the 5.9% from Reform UK to the Tories gives the Tories 185 seats and Labour a comfortable 114 majority.
If you then transfer say half the Green share to Labour, then the Tories get 160 seats and Labour a 164 overall majority - approaching the Blair result in 1997.
Ron Deelan, a former chief executive of British Steel, said: “This is a completely unnecessary step for the British steel industry, which is not waiting for more coal as there is enough on the free market available. The British steel industry needs green investment in electric arc furnaces and hydrogen to protect jobs and make the UK competitive.”
The tories have overseen a comparative drop in UK competitiveness since 2010. Undermining productivity year after year. They are the enemy within.
The Tories problem is that they're glued to several events and policies that can't be undone. They've had corruption and malfeasance on a grand scale by Johnson. They've shown incompetence beyond comprehension in their selection of Truss. The collapse in the public finances are being blamed on that alone. Public Services are seen to be functioning at a level not seen since records began .......
......Then there's Brexit. Now widely recognised as an irreversible national calamity which has cost the country a fortune and for which the Tories are solely responsible
Turning an inevitable Labour victory into a rout shouldn't be out of their sights. Starmer is becoming better by the day and more trusted even more likable. His backroom team are getting better known and looking reasonably competent.
Meanwhile his policies are being developed by some very able professionals and his research department are getting it together well.....
Whether it'll be a victory or an annihilation is difficult to tell. The braver Starmer chooses to be the better chance of a wipeout
https://mattgoodwin.substack.com/p/winter-is-coming?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=858965&post_id=89280648&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email
but at least he reaches a startling and original conclusion, one which no PBer will ever have thought before:
"one thing is abundantly clear: winter is coming and it looks set to have far-reaching consequences not just for Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party but British politics more generally."
Something has gone badly wrong.
Economist leaders used all to have exactly the same structure, as if compiles by AI, but at least they made sense.
This was, in 4 steps:
Situation X does not accord with the principles of well regulated universal, liberal international order.
The more or less best outcome would be Y, (which in all cases was in line with well ordered late Victorian liberalism).
Since this is not immediately attainable the best next steps are A, B and C.
With a coda quite often: The world has not yet aligned itself to our self evidently correct principles so don't hold your breath.
(BTW they were usually right of course).
Basically, for all its enormous database, AI is still outwitted by the trick that anyone who interacts with clever nine year olds quickly learns to swerve.
https://twitter.com/LucyHunterB/status/1601168815702036480
So I was getting 4% of the purchase price of my first house (after a couple of years and pay rises), they are getting 3.5% of the price of the same house. I wish I had hung on to it.
It makes sense for MSPs - after all, they have PR so they only represent their own voters.
But in general, I don't see any problem with a parent being "against private education" (whatever that means exactly) and at the same time allowing a child to make use of a 100% scholarship to a private school. What's the problem?
Camp 1. The Zeitgeists:
“Don’t make faces because if the wind changes you’ll be stuck like that.” My granny used to say this and the Tories should have heeded her. Because the wind has changed and they’ve been caught with an expression that is ugly in the extreme. People take one look at it and go, “Urgh, no thank you, on your bike.” This means come the election they’ll be hammered, tactical voting amplifying the loss, and a Labour majority is nailed on, maybe a big one.
Camp 2. The Technicals:
These wise old owls look at the size of the Labour challenge, the gains they need over and above a redwall revival, the continuing reluctance of Scotland to play ball, the softness of the 20 pt lead, the probability of swingback to the governing party as an election looms, etc, and they conclude that Labour will do very well indeed to chisel out even a small majority and more likely is a hung parliament.
It’s great we have opinion split like this since it means a betting profits bonanza if you pick a camp and get it right. Course you have to do it now whilst the split is there. No waiting until the election is just around the corner and it becomes obvious (at cramped odds) which is the right play.
My problem is I can’t quite make my mind up. I think I’m a Zeitgeist but not with enough gusto to lump on. I’m also stuck with a bad short of Lab majority @ 6 from back when I thought it was close to impossible. Before the Tory implosion. Before the wind changed.
My position is that a sustainable presence of humanity in space needs two or three very heavy-lift launchers. I'm therefore keen on (currently) SLS, SH/SS and New Glenn. I'm also somewhat more bearish on SH/SS than some on here, but will defend New Glenn against some of the more SpaceX-biased criticisms.
It's space. It's all cool. Literally.
I bought a Mk.2 GTI 16V which I wrote off almost immediately but still had to pay for the fucking thing for years.
This is obviously a poor setup considering that MPs are now glorified untrained caseworkers, and will be contacted by thousands of people a month involving some very complicated problems.
I know either Danny Wallace or Dave Gorman did a comedy show around this, and it appears to work better than the current bollocks.
It seemed great to me, until I thought about it harder as an accountant and then went...... "quarterly reporting........ ahhhhhh.... won't work."
But changing our time and calendar system to something 'metric' seems like a good idea (but will never happen).
How many days in a quarter? Depending on how you count it, could be anywhere between 89 and 92.
And don't get me started on the Gregorian calendar anyway. It's wrong. Not as bad as the Julian one, but still, won't we have a problem in 4000 years or so..... I'm thinking long term here....... doesn't it count the leap years wrong anyway?
Yougov in July 2008 for example had the Conservatives on 47% and Labour on just 25%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_2010_United_Kingdom_general_election
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/136295/response/334611/attach/4/Attachment B.PDF.pdf
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-63916328
So I assume the police will have to be going to a lot of building sites then?
Obviously there are people who feel radically differently about all of the above. Trying to match up a state's boundaries to some imagined nation is a mug's game. I'm all for devolution, but we'd have been better to avoid aligning the boundaries with the historic nations. A Parliament covering Scotland and the North East would have had a better chance of providing decent government rather than wanging on about referendums.
Is he OK ?
And todays date, in Ethiopia, is Thursday, 30/3/2015.
The only interesting thing I learned during my brief stint processing expense claims for BBC journalists was that receipts from Ethiopia were based on a very odd calendar that doesn’t make much sense.
My god, that was a mind numbing job!
Criminialising wolf whistling is the sort of law Harriet Harperson would introduce, I didn't realise we had elected a labour government. If we are going to start criminalising all sort of arseholery, they better start building a lot of new prisons.
Here (NRW) written homework generally isn't allowed in schools that have afternoon lessons, at least until the Oberstufe (final 3 years before Abitur, if taken).
What I want to know is... is it illegal to lobby for a company to receive a contract, claim you had no direct interest in it, but actually be lying? It feels like it should be somehow... but not really sure.
Optionally crewed vehicles are always posited but have, thus far, never eventuated as they would up being very heavy, complex and expensive to use in uncrewed roles. Why not use a dedicated UAS?
There is a bit of a rethink going regarding uncrewed air systems at the moment. There is no doubt that they are going to form a large part of any air combat component but some issues have emerged with their increasing proliferation.
First, it's very hard to retain UAS crews for a long period. People will happily do flying tours in crewed aircraft for years on end (I did five consecutive flying tours) but people absolutely will not do that on UAS. A few years and that's it. They can't take any more of sitting in a Portacabin, eating Pringles and incinerating strangers on motorbikes in the desert with a Hellfire.
Second, UAS need a lot of crew. Even a medium weight system like MQ-9 needs a full mission creew and a full recovery crew - four people. This makes the retention problem above even more serious. A large UAS force has to recruit and train in large numbers on a constant basis. The RAF have ran into trouble with this and have resorted to using American mercenaries, sorry contractors, as the in-theatre recovery element for MQ-9.