Doesn't matter on what happens with the boats, this is what the voters will remember.
Food prices inflation up to new high
Food prices inflation has risen by 15 per cent in a year, causing prices in Britain’s shops to climb faster than ever before.
Average shop prices are now 8.9 per cent higher than they were at this time a year ago, the highest rate of annual inflation that the British Retail Consortium, which collects the data, has recorded. It marks an acceleration from the 8.4 per cent noted in February.
One thing I have noticed in the consumer confidence data is that there has been a decent recovery in confidence among those on >£50k but none among everyone else. I think stuff like this has a lot to do with that. Until we see confidence improving among middle income earners I would be wary of expecting a major Tory recovery, however nasty they are to kids fleeing war zones.
The mix of inflation is striking as well. Life's essentials (housing / energy / food) are going up a lot, but discretionary spending is mostly getting cheaper in real terms;
Presumably that's why the comfortably off are quite chipper.
What seems to be going up most in supermarkets are branded items.
In Asda at the moment a 910g bottle of Heinz tomato sauce is £4, whereas a 970g of Asda tomato sauce is £1.10. Therefore for what is basically the same product, Heinz s more than 4 times the cost. How do Asda manage to make tomato sauce so much cheaper than Heinz, or is there just some extreme profiteering going on with Heinz?
A lot of the own brand stuff is made in the same factories, by the same staff, as the branded stuff, albeit to a different recipe.
You'd assume that Asda are using cheaper ingredients, but they're probably also profiteering on the brand loyalty of customers able and willing to pay more for branded products.
I don't eat ketchup because it's fucking disgusting but I know my kids would go ballistic if we bought anything other than Heinz. We had a mini rebellion on our hands just substituting the low sugar and salt version. I'm mostly an own brand kind of guy but there are certain things (weetabix, ketchup and mayonnaise, marmite, nutella) where only the branded version will do.
I have a pal whose lad goes similarly ballistic when she buys supermarket brands, he calls them ‘council sauce’, ‘council ginger’ etc. She performed an experiment where she replaced the contents of an opened tube of Pringles with I think Asda’s own version, and nary a peep was heard.
Not really an option with ketchup I accept.
I hope your pal gives him a clip round the ear! If our kids called stuff 'council' I'd be furious. My son does call crap stuff BTec which is almost as bad and I do have a go at him, although you could argue that academic snobbery at least has some basis compared to class snobbery. When I was growing up we usually had the basic/value range for most stuff, it was quite painful in the status-obsessed 1980s. I remember refusing to wear a coat that had been handed down since the mid-70s and was ridiculously out of fashion (would probably be worth hundreds now). Must have been difficult for my parents, who couldn't afford to buy us new stuff. Our kids -who luckily don't ask for much but generally get what they ask for - don't know they're born.
Class snobbery is of course perfectly ok as long as it is directed at the toffs and poshos.
Like duh, of course it is!
As a member of that persecuted minority I think it is only fair we keep our tax breaks for private schools as compensation for the lifetime of abuse we receive from plebs and oiks.
Though if you have been to private school you are more likely to be able to respond to any abuse from class warriors educated at comprehensive or academy schools with received pronounciation
The majority of such abuse is from privately educated people who are now trying, desperately, to be as left wing as they can.
Even Corbynites educated at private school are more likely to speak with received pronounciation than Corbynites educated at comprehensives
Do you speak with RP or more rough & ready Essex?
I was born and raised in Tunbridge Wells, went to a major public school and live in rural Essex not Basildon. What do you think I speak like?
No idea how you speak, young HY, but with a background like that, you ought to be a Lib Dem supporter by now.
From my recent door-knocking, I find that all decent Conservatives have switched to the Lib Dems now.
Unfortunately I am not posh enough to be a Lib Dem voter now!
Surely the Lineker ruling is in error? I read on here quite strident comments from PB's resident Tax Expert(s) that Sir Crispbag was the most egregious tax-dodging bastard whose political opinions were therefore practically treasonous.
I was expecting the odd acknowledgment of getting it wrong. I really should have know better.
Surely the Lineker ruling is in error? I read on here quite strident comments from PB's resident Tax Expert that Sir Crispbag was the most egregious tax-dodging bastard whose political opinions were therefore practically treasonous.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
'The BBC understands that Jeremy Corbyn is considering running as an independent candidate in Islington North.'
'Mr Corbyn criticised the Labour leader, claiming Sir Keir "has broken his commitment to respect the rights of Labour members and denigrated the democratic foundations of our party", in a statement issued on Monday.
"I joined the Labour Party when I was 16 years old because, like millions of others, I believed in a redistribution of wealth and power," he added.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
What is "recognisably British"?
A combination of cultural markers that is obvious to anyone not being deliberately obtuse about national culture. We all know immigrants that have culturally become a lot more British than others. It's a bunch of things from accent to mannerisms to outlook. It shows up with immigrant groups living, socially mixing and intermarrying outside their own group at the same rates as the rest of the population.
Of course at this point, the mass immigration brigade will start claiming that I am arguing EVERY immigrant needs to adopt EVERYTHING British. I am not. I am saying sufficient cultural integration will happen with the bulk of people in immigrant areas without compulsion as long as we have time without ongoing mass immigration. But they don't have a good argument against this, so they have to make up a strawman.
No this isnt happening in northern towns like Bradford, Blackburn and Burnley. It may be happening to a degree in a rich cosmopolitan city like london but even here you have the indians or those of indian descent living near heathrow airport, the africans in east london etc.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
I'm not sure I follow - the new machines pick the fruit with a robot arm as gently (or even more gently) than a human. Rather than shaking/thrashing the plant in some way.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
What is "recognisably British"?
Crap weather, passive aggression, accent obsession, crisps, trainspotting, Marks and Spencer, a pebbledashed 1930s semi, Sunday League football, Radio 2, eating sandwiches in the car.
This places you as someone who grew up in the 1980s. You are evoking many of my childhood Saturday afternoons: sitting in the back of the car eating crisps after a trip to M&S, as the whine of the windscreen wiper sloshes away the pouring rain in the afternoon half light while the BBC classified football results play over the car radio.
Ha ha, yes indeed. Although growing up we didn't have a car and never shopped at M&S! But when I close my eyes and think of Britain these are the images that come to mind. A wet weekend afternoon certainly, with almost empty suburban streets; a few grumpy looking people out and about, smoking.
Surely you shopped at M&S for lambswool crew neck jumpers?
Which you may then have gone on to use as goalposts or not.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
I'm not sure I follow - the new machines pick the fruit with a robot arm as gently (or even more gently) than a human. Rather than shaking/thrashing the plant in some way.
Oh really? That's interesting, ta.
Edsit: just realised the other thing that was niggling me. Some cultivars fruit over a period so visual selection is very important, like my garden ones. But perhaps tyhey have that sussed too.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
They're really not.
There’s now a whole load of fruit-picking machines out there. The UK has a chance to be seen as a pioneer of this technology, rather than simply throwing unskilled labour at the problem.
Go to a city like Bradford completely segregated between those of pakistan descent in the central areas and the relatively white outer suburbs. Not much mixing here and mass immigration here dates from the 1950s.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
Also, a new £2m robot is hardly an alternative for a farmer who can't find people to pick his crop.
I suggest you read around. The people making these robots sell them to firms offering the farmers a price per hour for picking. Which is based on the hourly cost of human labour, strangely. As in "around or just below"....
In the long run, it would probably be cheaper to invest directly in the picking robots. Most fram machinery is savagely expensive....
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
I'm not sure I follow - the new machines pick the fruit with a robot arm as gently (or even more gently) than a human. Rather than shaking/thrashing the plant in some way.
Oh really? That's interesting, ta.
Edsit: just realised the other thing that was niggling me. Some cultivars fruit over a period so visual selection is very important, like my garden ones. But perhaps tyhey have that sussed too.
Yup - this is machine vision, and robotics combined with real world usage of "AI". Picking the perfectly ripe ones and leaving the unripe is a fundamental part of the system.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
Also, a new £2m robot is hardly an alternative for a farmer who can't find people to pick his crop.
These being prototypes the cost is high due to R&D work....I very much doubt subsequent units will cost as much to manufacture now all the glitches have been worked out.
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
'The BBC understands that Jeremy Corbyn is considering running as an independent candidate in Islington North.'
'Mr Corbyn criticised the Labour leader, claiming Sir Keir "has broken his commitment to respect the rights of Labour members and denigrated the democratic foundations of our party", in a statement issued on Monday.
"I joined the Labour Party when I was 16 years old because, like millions of others, I believed in a redistribution of wealth and power," hwe added.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
'The BBC understands that Jeremy Corbyn is considering running as an independent candidate in Islington North.'
'Mr Corbyn criticised the Labour leader, claiming Sir Keir "has broken his commitment to respect the rights of Labour members and denigrated the democratic foundations of our party", in a statement issued on Monday.
"I joined the Labour Party when I was 16 years old because, like millions of others, I believed in a redistribution of wealth and power," hwe added.
Doesn't matter on what happens with the boats, this is what the voters will remember.
Food prices inflation up to new high
Food prices inflation has risen by 15 per cent in a year, causing prices in Britain’s shops to climb faster than ever before.
Average shop prices are now 8.9 per cent higher than they were at this time a year ago, the highest rate of annual inflation that the British Retail Consortium, which collects the data, has recorded. It marks an acceleration from the 8.4 per cent noted in February.
One thing I have noticed in the consumer confidence data is that there has been a decent recovery in confidence among those on >£50k but none among everyone else. I think stuff like this has a lot to do with that. Until we see confidence improving among middle income earners I would be wary of expecting a major Tory recovery, however nasty they are to kids fleeing war zones.
The mix of inflation is striking as well. Life's essentials (housing / energy / food) are going up a lot, but discretionary spending is mostly getting cheaper in real terms;
Presumably that's why the comfortably off are quite chipper.
What seems to be going up most in supermarkets are branded items.
In Asda at the moment a 910g bottle of Heinz tomato sauce is £4, whereas a 970g of Asda tomato sauce is £1.10. Therefore for what is basically the same product, Heinz s more than 4 times the cost. How do Asda manage to make tomato sauce so much cheaper than Heinz, or is there just some extreme profiteering going on with Heinz?
A lot of the own brand stuff is made in the same factories, by the same staff, as the branded stuff, albeit to a different recipe.
You'd assume that Asda are using cheaper ingredients, but they're probably also profiteering on the brand loyalty of customers able and willing to pay more for branded products.
I don't eat ketchup because it's fucking disgusting but I know my kids would go ballistic if we bought anything other than Heinz. We had a mini rebellion on our hands just substituting the low sugar and salt version. I'm mostly an own brand kind of guy but there are certain things (weetabix, ketchup and mayonnaise, marmite, nutella) where only the branded version will do.
I have a pal whose lad goes similarly ballistic when she buys supermarket brands, he calls them ‘council sauce’, ‘council ginger’ etc. She performed an experiment where she replaced the contents of an opened tube of Pringles with I think Asda’s own version, and nary a peep was heard.
Not really an option with ketchup I accept.
I hope your pal gives him a clip round the ear! If our kids called stuff 'council' I'd be furious. My son does call crap stuff BTec which is almost as bad and I do have a go at him, although you could argue that academic snobbery at least has some basis compared to class snobbery. When I was growing up we usually had the basic/value range for most stuff, it was quite painful in the status-obsessed 1980s. I remember refusing to wear a coat that had been handed down since the mid-70s and was ridiculously out of fashion (would probably be worth hundreds now). Must have been difficult for my parents, who couldn't afford to buy us new stuff. Our kids -who luckily don't ask for much but generally get what they ask for - don't know they're born.
Class snobbery is of course perfectly ok as long as it is directed at the toffs and poshos.
Like duh, of course it is!
As a member of that persecuted minority I think it is only fair we keep our tax breaks for private schools as compensation for the lifetime of abuse we receive from plebs and oiks.
Though if you have been to private school you are more likely to be able to respond to any abuse from class warriors educated at comprehensive or academy schools with received pronounciation
The majority of such abuse is from privately educated people who are now trying, desperately, to be as left wing as they can.
Even Corbynites educated at private school are more likely to speak with received pronounciation than Corbynites educated at comprehensives
Do you speak with RP or more rough & ready Essex?
I was born and raised in Tunbridge Wells, went to a major public school and live in rural Essex not Basildon. What do you think I speak like?
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
I had lunch with someone who is a moderate and a significant employer of skilled labour. I am not entirely clear how he votes - it could be for any one of the 3 main parties.
He was very clear: the only way to force firms to invest in productivity enhancing projects (and to fix the UK’s macro productivity issue) is to restrict the supply of unskilled labour otherwise business will take the easy route of hiring more people.
For skilled labour? I entirely agree. Largely though the shortages are for unskilled labour. We can't find people to work in agriculture on in warehouses or on repetitive task production lines.
Yes, because in other countries those jobs are done by machines rather than people.
Not necessarily. But mechanical substitution is becoming easer for, say, fruit and veg picking. For a few K you can buy a robot that will happily trundle along, picking cucumbers all day and all night.
Find me a machine that can do that for soft fruit...
Depends on the cultivar. Which is the problem for raspberries if yoiu want flavour.
Also, a new £2m robot is hardly an alternative for a farmer who can't find people to pick his crop.
£2 million is the development cost, not the unit cost.
The value of the machine is in how much it costs to run vs the number of workers it can replace.
Back in the day, steam traction engines for farm work cost £4000 - which is about £500K in purchasing equivalent. Which is about the cost of a brand new combine now, IIRC.
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
The issues in the US are cultural, and go back centuries to the founding of that country. The whole point of the USA, is that the people there are always prepared to rise up against the government.
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
The original (ha ha) intent was -
"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
You split it into justification (the first half) and a rule ("the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"). That's what the SCOTUS has done and, we have to assume, will continue to do.
Last term of Parliament, the Change or Suppression (conversion) practices bill passed. The sales pitch for this was that it would stop horrific historic gay conversion therapy. If it just did this, I would have supported. But of course, it didn’t just do that. 1/5
This is an example of a newly prohibited practice outlined by VEOHRC. If your child asks you for a tattoo, and you say no, you’re a good parent. But if they ask you for puberty blockers and you say no - you’re breaking the law now. 2/5
But what about parents that think “it’s just a phase. Surely the medical professionals will see that. They thought they were Batman last week”. Well no. They’re not allowed to do anything other than affirm identity. 3/5
And what about parents that think a child can’t consent properly and they should make these decisions for themselves as an adult as they will affect the rest of their lives? Well you’re in trouble too. 4/5 https://twitter.com/_davidlimbrick/status/1640675300261658624?s=20
Not really. Entirely consistent with Republican dogma that has sought to discredit the government, state agencies, etc, at every turn, as part of their ideology of small government.
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
Not really, since they have to deal with the Second Amendment, and a Supreme Court that interprets it literally.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
The original (ha ha) intent was -
"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
Of course a government of slave owners would be quite keen on the right to keep and bear arms, what with having to protect/control their living chattels.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
Larger parts of the country think that they want more of the country to feel less recognizably British?
I know that pockets of the left have deep cultural cringe over British culture, despise British history and think the Proms is not sufficiently woke etc... but it is definitely not the majority of the country.
No, large countries don't consider the gammony parody you describe to be "British".
What you think isn't the same as what "the majority of the country" think. Can you see that?
The fact you are the type to use racist slurs puts you in the outlying minority, not me.
What racist slur? "Gammon"? That is a skin tone driven by internal rage, not a race.
FfS.... if you can show your ancestry back to the Angles & Saxons then you should also be deported back to mainland Europe and leave the Island to its original inhabitants - the Cymry.
On topic, Sunak and the government need to realise that the small boats policy is interpreted as a step in the right direction by many voters but only a small pillar of what needs to be a comprehensive approach. Each time the government does something like this, the reaction is "good" before a realization that "oh it was just a headline grabber".
Sunak needs to comprehensively address lpw skilled immigration. Much of the public living in or near low income areas wants these places to feel reocgnizably British again. And for that to happen we need 10 to 20 years of integration without a constant influx of newcomers who work in the irregular economy, keep down wages, speak broken English, and, in some cases, have reactionary religious views.
So part of that is stopping the boats by genuinely removing the incentive. But it is also ending marriage visas being used to bring in arranged brides. It is also ending low quality universities just effectively acting as fee for visa model or being majority foreign student. It is also not letting marginal college students from the Middle East bringing over entire families. It is also tightening up the "skilled" visa route from the watering down by employers that has included shopkeepers and fencers on 26k a year.
If Sunak did all that and could say at the next election, "I have revamped our immigration policy to move from 40% high skilled to 95% high skilled", THAT would be an election winner. And Labour would also trip over themselves in saying how they want more low income folks.
I am clear that parts of the country think as you describe. I am also clear that larger parts think the direct opposite.
Larger parts of the country think that they want more of the country to feel less recognizably British?
I know that pockets of the left have deep cultural cringe over British culture, despise British history and think the Proms is not sufficiently woke etc... but it is definitely not the majority of the country.
No, large countries don't consider the gammony parody you describe to be "British".
What you think isn't the same as what "the majority of the country" think. Can you see that?
The fact you are the type to use racist slurs puts you in the outlying minority, not me.
What racist slur? "Gammon"? That is a skin tone driven by internal rage, not a race.
FfS.... if you can show your ancestry back to the Angles & Saxons tgen you should also be deported back to mainland Europe
Comments
I really should have know better.
REPORTER: "Do you think there's any role for congress to play in reaction [to the Tennessee shooting]?"
BURCHETT: "I don't see any real role that we could do other than mess things up."
https://mobile.twitter.com/brenonade/status/1640514060532711429
like that one?
Which you may then have gone on to use as goalposts or not.
Edsit: just realised the other thing that was niggling me. Some cultivars fruit over a period so visual selection is very important, like my garden ones. But perhaps tyhey have that sussed too.
That's our job!
https://twitter.com/BBCPhilipSim/status/1640707803634343943?s=20
Labour 30,000
Corbyn 15,000
Lib Dem 5,000
Greens 3,000
Conservatives 2,000
In the long run, it would probably be cheaper to invest directly in the picking robots. Most fram machinery is savagely expensive....
In that sense it is dishonest because there is plenty that Congress could do on gun control, if it so chose, that would improve the situation without messing it up.
'Cures scrofula, socialism and separatism. Not to be taken internally.'
Back in the day, steam traction engines for farm work cost £4000 - which is about £500K in purchasing equivalent. Which is about the cost of a brand new combine now, IIRC.
Not sure how you interpret that literally. It's gibberish.
The issues in the US are cultural, and go back centuries to the founding of that country. The whole point of the USA, is that the people there are always prepared to rise up against the government.
"A well regulated Militia" - the militia was the volunteer army created by getting everyone to down tools and get their guns.
"being necessary to the security of a free State" - there was a deep belief that the militia with their rifled hunting guns had seen off the British professionals. This was a myth. It took George Washington a lot of effort to train the army to be... professional.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" - it was believed that if you had a bunch of hardy frontiersmen, with their trusty long rifles, all able to shoot the corners of an ace of spades at a zillion yards, from hunting all the time... well, then you wouldn't need a standing army.
Last term of Parliament, the Change or Suppression (conversion) practices bill passed. The sales pitch for this was that it would stop horrific historic gay conversion therapy. If it just did this, I would have supported. But of course, it didn’t just do that.
1/5
This is an example of a newly prohibited practice outlined by VEOHRC. If your child asks you for a tattoo, and you say no, you’re a good parent. But if they ask you for puberty blockers and you say no - you’re breaking the law now.
2/5
But what about parents that think “it’s just a phase. Surely the medical professionals will see that. They thought they were Batman last week”. Well no. They’re not allowed to do anything other than affirm identity.
3/5
And what about parents that think a child can’t consent properly and they should make these decisions for themselves as an adult as they will affect the rest of their lives? Well you’re in trouble too.
4/5 https://twitter.com/_davidlimbrick/status/1640675300261658624?s=20
testing