Rishi has got boat crossings down 20% this year so far, and Albanian crossings down 90%.
If that continues and he starts to get on top on inflation and is in a position to cut taxes next year, that might start to tell in rallying the base.
The last two or three weeks have seen a persistent strong east or north east wind through the Channel which would deter all but the most reckless as the wind and current would blow you back towards France.
The acid test will be when the wind changes back to a SW'ly. I suspect we'll see a new rush of boat migrants when that happens.
I see the Conservatives have also sacrificed reducing the deficit and the debt on the altar of remaining in office to the extent we now see the "tax cut next spring" being peddled as somehow the way to save the Government. Presumably, once re-elected, the taxes will be put back up to start really paying down the deficit and debt as well as the large debt interest built up.
It's June. We are half-way through the year.
I don't think balancing the books will be sacrificed for a tax cut next spring. There will be a modest one and Rishi will go into the next GE pledging to progressively cut tax further each year during the next parliament, as he gets a grip.
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
If anyone fancies a giggle take a look at R&W's Scottish subsample.
SNP 32 CON 28 LAB 25
The person in the flat below HYUFD just drowned
My goodness, that would see the Scottish Conservatives pick up 11 SNP seats, like 2017 the Tories may lose seats to Labour in England but looks like they could even gain seats in Scotland on that subsample with Rishi proving even more popular in Scotland than Theresa May was
Since we're apparently 'aving a larf about R&W subsamples, here's the one for the South West in the same poll: Labour 53% Con 26% Lib Dem 12% Green 9%
How many of their 48 South West seats would the Conservatives lose on that result?
Less than half of them, as many of them are LD target seats rather than Labour
If they lost less than half, that's a loss of 23 or less. So you are claiming that the Conservatives would win at least 45% (i.e. 25+) of the 55 seats in the South West with just 26% of the vote.
Do you really think that? Seriously?
Yes, as I said the anti Tory vote is split. In 2019 the LDs got 18% in the South West compared to only 11% UK wide. Much of that high Labour vote in the SW will be huge Labour majorities in Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Gloucester, Bournemouth, and Swindon and Falmouth etc while the rural and coastal SW will be split between LDs and Labour for the anti Tory vote
I appreciate HYUFD that you may be aving a larf with your claim that the Conservatives would win at least 45% of the 55 seats in the South West with just 26% of the vote, since any claim based on R&W subsamples is surely aving a larf.
But to put the matter to rest I've worked out the figures for you.
The change in vote share in that R&W South West subsample is Lab +30%, Con -27%, LD -6%.
Apply UNS to that and the Conservatives would lose 48 out of 48 of their South West seats.
The closest the Conservatives would come to holding a seat would be Christchurch, where they would end up about 4% behind Labour.
Based on the latest Survation rural seats poll which has the Tories 6% ahead of Labour the Tories will hold far more rural SW seats than that. As I said the Labour vote will pile up in Plymouth and Bristol and Exeter but far less so in rural areas.
I also expect the SW subsample overestimates Labour as the Scottish subsample overestimates the Tories
The Conservatives start with a 12% share of the vote in Bristol West. If they were to lose 27% of their 53% vote share in the SW, their vote share in Bristol West is not going to fall by 27% in that sort of seat to end up at -15%. So with such a huge notional swing, then in the seats where they start furthest behind a mathematically possible outcome has to have a swing against the Conservatives smaller not larger than predicted by UNS.
And of course the R&W SW subsample overestimates Labour! Massively so, it's utter rubbish. But that is missing the point by retrospectively moving the goalposts. As is citing a different Survation poll.
The fact is that you were confidently making a claim based on what would happen in the SW IF the R&W subsample were correct. And your claim based on that premise was demonstrably wrong.
Sorry, but I've had enough of this. If you claimed that 2 times 3 equals 23 and I pointed out that it equalled 6, you would always maintain that your original claim was right.
The polls (with added threat of tactical voting) are saying this
But PB Tories are wearing a pair of these
so only sees
congogglevision (c) - available under the counter at all good Conservative Clubs.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Apple have invented a new technology called "eyesight".
Apple rarely innovate they take existing tech and build it into their products and claim its new. Same as they did with the ipad, iphone and iplayer
iplayer is a bbc technology.
What existed prior to the iphone?
Well the first smartphone was ibm's simon, also predating the iphone we have the blackberry, palm , newton etc....they were all smartphones in their way
They've done very well making good versions of things that others innovated, adding a dash of their own, then somehow getting away with a huge markup.
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
In America, the Amazon Fresh stores are upsetting the Woke.
Apparently, because they are Amazon account only, they are “hostile”
The latest design uses full height doors, so potential thieves can’t jump over the entry turnstiles.
Then again, if you decriminalise shoplifting, then something has to give….
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Certainly a nice story. It has felt at times that the role the UK has occupied has been that of major (not great) power being bullish, to test the waters for the big brother of the USA to provide the major kit (whilst Poland provides the most immediate support and even more bullishness from the 'neighbouring power' position). Especially as some of our kit is not standard apparently, so cannot be a major long term thing.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
That after the war, it would all be treated as a friendly game of tiddlywinks.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread - cheaper than Sainsbury's or Tesco's!
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Certainly a nice story. It has felt at times that the role the UK has occupied has been that of major (not great) power being bullish, to test the waters for the big brother of the USA to provide the major kit (whilst Poland provides the most immediate support and even more bullishness from the 'neighbouring power' position). Especially as some of our kit is not standard apparently, so cannot be a major long term thing.
We should sell some nuclear weapons to Ukraine. And start a joint development project for an ICBM/SLBM.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
It is unfortunate that the implication in the story is that support for Ukraine has become partisan (or risks turning that way) in many places. Not to dwell on it too much, but whilst many individual MPs would have still been hawkish we know under a certain other leader the opposition line would have been very different indeed.
The opposition was pretty onboard during the pandemic as well - much recrimination now, sure, but we never got that much partisan bickering over vaccines for example.
If anyone fancies a giggle take a look at R&W's Scottish subsample.
SNP 32 CON 28 LAB 25
The person in the flat below HYUFD just drowned
My goodness, that would see the Scottish Conservatives pick up 11 SNP seats, like 2017 the Tories may lose seats to Labour in England but looks like they could even gain seats in Scotland on that subsample with Rishi proving even more popular in Scotland than Theresa May was
Since we're apparently 'aving a larf about R&W subsamples, here's the one for the South West in the same poll: Labour 53% Con 26% Lib Dem 12% Green 9%
How many of their 48 South West seats would the Conservatives lose on that result?
Less than half of them, as many of them are LD target seats rather than Labour
If they lost less than half, that's a loss of 23 or less. So you are claiming that the Conservatives would win at least 45% (i.e. 25+) of the 55 seats in the South West with just 26% of the vote.
Do you really think that? Seriously?
Yes, as I said the anti Tory vote is split. In 2019 the LDs got 18% in the South West compared to only 11% UK wide. Much of that high Labour vote in the SW will be huge Labour majorities in Bristol, Exeter, Plymouth, Gloucester, Bournemouth, and Swindon and Falmouth etc while the rural and coastal SW will be split between LDs and Labour for the anti Tory vote
I appreciate HYUFD that you may be aving a larf with your claim that the Conservatives would win at least 45% of the 55 seats in the South West with just 26% of the vote, since any claim based on R&W subsamples is surely aving a larf.
But to put the matter to rest I've worked out the figures for you.
The change in vote share in that R&W South West subsample is Lab +30%, Con -27%, LD -6%.
Apply UNS to that and the Conservatives would lose 48 out of 48 of their South West seats.
The closest the Conservatives would come to holding a seat would be Christchurch, where they would end up about 4% behind Labour.
Based on the latest Survation rural seats poll which has the Tories 6% ahead of Labour the Tories will hold far more rural SW seats than that. As I said the Labour vote will pile up in Plymouth and Bristol and Exeter but far less so in rural areas.
I also expect the SW subsample overestimates Labour as the Scottish subsample overestimates the Tories
The Conservatives start with a 12% share of the vote in Bristol West. If they were to lose 27% of their 53% vote share in the SW, their vote share in Bristol West is not going to fall by 27% in that sort of seat to end up at -15%. So with such a huge notional swing, then in the seats where they start furthest behind a mathematically possible outcome has to have a swing against the Conservatives smaller not larger than predicted by UNS.
And of course the R&W SW subsample overestimates Labour! Massively so, it's utter rubbish. But that is missing the point by retrospectively moving the goalposts. As is citing a different Survation poll.
The fact is that you were confidently making a claim based on what would happen in the SW IF the R&W subsample were correct. And your claim based on that premise was demonstrably wrong.
Sorry, but I've had enough of this. If you claimed that 2 times 3 equals 23 and I pointed out that it equalled 6, you would always maintain that your original claim was right.
Nope, take an urban seat like Bournemouth West for example where the Tories are on 53% or a city seat like Plymouth Moor View where the Tories got 60% in 2019, that could easily accomodate such a big swing.
While as already pointed out in rural areas the Tories are still 5% ahead on the Survation poll. So pick one seat which suits your argument, I have given 2 seats which support my argument and as mentioned added the rural seats poll too!
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread, cheaper than Sainsbury or Tesco
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
Yet the Conservatives vote share in rural seats is still 41% to just 36% for Labour, so the Conservatives still lead in rural seats
Hmmm - just like they did in 1997?
Yes well a 1997 result is still better than the wipeout they were heading for under Truss (and on preferred PM Sunak is closer).
Rural areas will always mostly vote Tory even in heavy Tory defeats, just as inner city areas will always mostly vote Labour even in heavy Labour defeats like 1983 or 2019
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread - cheaper than Sainsbury's or Tesco's!
Sainsbury's is only 65p and Tesco's is 75p.
But in any event they should all be avoided as ultra-processed foods:
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
That after the war, it would all be treated as a friendly game of tiddlywinks.
That's the only possible conclusion.
The Wehrmacht were superb at operations and tactics. At politics, intelligence and grand strategy they were delinquent.
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread - cheaper than Sainsbury's or Tesco's!
Sainsbury's is only 65p and Tesco's is 75p.
But in any event they should all be avoided as ultra-processed foods:
I don't know why the article is presented as a question 'Could ultra-processed foods be harmful for us?' when the tone of the article is very much 'Yes it is, and these bodies are refusing to deal with it so far'.
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
Getting ready for a post war where he imagined a cosy retirement, without understanding what was really com8ngvdown the line.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
A right to cash needs to be legislated for..
If Labour were serious they would pledge this. It might even win them some votes too.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
You can't always have what you want. Market forces and all that.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread - cheaper than Sainsbury's or Tesco's!
Sainsbury's is only 65p and Tesco's is 75p.
But in any event they should all be avoided as ultra-processed foods:
I don't know why the article is presented as a question 'Could ultra-processed foods be harmful for us?' when the tone of the article is very much 'Yes it is, and these bodies are refusing to deal with it so far'.
Let me hazard a guess: It's written by a journalist?
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
That after the war, it would all be treated as a friendly game of tiddlywinks.
A lot of senior Germans and indeed Nazi officials imagined a defeat, followed by peace negotiations, and settling down again to run the country. They seemed to lack the understanding of just what was coming down the line. As the probably apocryphal story about Stalingrad being a glimpse of what would happen to Berlin, the attrocitites committed in the East meant nothing short of total destruction and surrender would be permitted. Some also hoped that the western allies would see sense and join the fight to repel the Russians.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Within limits: if I'm a car dealer and you come with a collection of 20p and 50p pieces to buy a car, then there's an enormous burden on me to confirm that all the money is there.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
You can't always have what you want. Market forces and all that.
What's needed is an electronic version of cash which makes the transfer anonymously
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Ed Balls to pay the window cleaner....
I'm afraid that's lost on me. Suffice to say our window cleaner doesn't take cash, he wants a bank transfer.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Ed Balls to pay the window cleaner....
I'm afraid that's lost on me. Suffice to say our window cleaner doesn't take cash, he wants a bank transfer.
During the expenses scandal it was revealed Ed Balls only paid by cash in hand for the window cleaner, no receipts.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
You can't always have what you want. Market forces and all that.
What's needed is an electronic version of cash which makes the transfer anonymously
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
A right to cash needs to be legislated for..
If Labour were serious they would pledge this. It might even win them some votes too.
It would be a strong signal that they are completely out of touch with young people and desperate for the reactionary pensioner vote.
As it's an open thread, here are some observations that some may find interesting. Obviously they're personal and doubtless not at all representative. I have just spent a pleasant couple of months on the Canadian and US West Coast and I've found:
Unsurprising: a) Food prices really are outrageous, at any rate if you want anything better than mass market processed slop. This has always been the case but seems even worse now. A slightly gourmet loaf of bread in an average supermarket can easily be $6 (£5), decent cheeses are at least two, often three times as expensive as here, and, my favourite, almonds are two or three times as much, but they're grown in California. Restaurants are taking the piss just as much as here, too - a quesadilla that used to be $8 a couple of years ago is now $14. On the other hand, bananas are better and cheaper than here. b) Yes, homeless are everywhere in big cities. The metro trains in LA are basically dorms for them, there are large shanty towns under many freeway overpasses and the Tenderloin in San Francisco has partly been abandoned to them. They also have much less fear about verbally harassing others than they used to. It reminds me of time I spent in New York before the cleanup in the 90s. A friend called it the "Brazilification of America". No doubt eventually there will be a similar reaction. c) The wettest winter in 50 years has led to a plague of mosquitoes in areas that didn't have them. Hopefully temporary but deeply annoying nonethless. d) None of my political friends are thinking much about the next US general election yet. But they have the same assumptions that most of us have: Biden vs Trump, with Biden probably edging it. None seem to think that Biden's infirmities or Trump's criminal issues will prevent a 2020 rematch in 2024, not because they are widely loved, but because both parties have failed completely to generate anything better.
More suprising, to me anyway: a) Anecdotally. the recent increases in interest rates don't seem to have cooled the housing market yet, at least according to a couple of realtors I talked to at an open house party in a smart area of LA. Houses are still getting a dozen bids and going for 10-20% over asking. FOMO is still a real thing. b) In Canada, nobody I met admitted to changing their opinions on the Monarchy after the accession of King Charles. It seems to be worn to a large extent as an anti-American badge, rather than on the practical effects of the issue. c) The cost of living seems to have faded somewhat as a political issue. But there's no overriding question that has replaced it, and debate seems very fragmented at the moment.
I live in LA, and even Erewhon "only" charges $5 for a loaf of French Country bread.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
M & S charge only 75p for "toastie" bread - cheaper than Sainsbury's or Tesco's!
Sainsbury's is only 65p and Tesco's is 75p.
But in any event they should all be avoided as ultra-processed foods:
I don't know why the article is presented as a question 'Could ultra-processed foods be harmful for us?' when the tone of the article is very much 'Yes it is, and these bodies are refusing to deal with it so far'.
Let me hazard a guess: It's written by a journalist?
That doesn't help me any - they could have titled it 'Ultra-processed foods are harmful for your health, experts suggest', which would more accurately fit the intended message of the article.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
My mother in law who cannot budget if she uses a card. Needs physical cash to see what she has spent.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Within limits: if I'm a car dealer and you come with a collection of 20p and 50p pieces to buy a car, then there's an enormous burden on me to confirm that all the money is there.
50ps and 20ps are already only legal tender up to a collective value of £10.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Certainly a nice story. It has felt at times that the role the UK has occupied has been that of major (not great) power being bullish, to test the waters for the big brother of the USA to provide the major kit (whilst Poland provides the most immediate support and even more bullishness from the 'neighbouring power' position). Especially as some of our kit is not standard apparently, so cannot be a major long term thing.
They're el hefe, we're the gobby sidekick. Not sure why that gives you such a warm glow, but you do you.
Pence is a good candidate on paper, a former Vice President who stood up to Trump on Jan 20th but also much more anti Putin and pro Zelensky than DeSantis.
Problem is he is currently squeezed between Trump and DeSantis
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
You can't always have what you want. Market forces and all that.
So the Labour Party no longer stands for correcting unfairness in the market and is happy with social exclusion?
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Ed Balls to pay the window cleaner....
Read that as Ed Balls to play the window cleaner, and got thinking of soft porn and Norman Wisdom…
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
Parking where they only accept digital payment, via one of the 20,000 different bloody apps is absolutely the worst.
Bring back Corbynator, who would nationalise the whole system under one crap app.
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
The Kaiser came up with his piece of genius on the spot, without asking anyone.
"How does this sound - we invade, steal half your country, but hey, we will give you lots of land from your neighbours to make up for it. Trust me, it's a steal of a deal."
Try teaching kids about the value of money, counting and savings without cash and places to spend it in.
CASH.
But then you have to explain the concept of fiat currency, the Bank of England, why it's not technically legal tender etc etc
The only real way to teach kids this stuff is to weigh out silver bullion and send them to the local market. If they don't come back with the requisite stock, beat them.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
If cash goes out and that means we have to suffer the indignity of free toilets, it'll be a bitter blow for the country
If our local authority is anything to go by they will just close them
'I have always called the Kaliningrad region my own. It would not be worse off if it was closer to Belarus.'
That would be an ironic outcome for Putin.
Imagine if Belarus getting Kaliningrad were coupled with the overthrow of Lukashenko and the installation of a democratic regime. You could perhaps even negotiate a corridor to give Minsk access to the Baltic.
Are there any Belarus-annexation friendly political organisations in Kaliningrad? I'd have assumed none whatsoever.
I doubt it, but in the realm of blue sky possibilities, the Russian population living there might find that option preferable to being incorporated into Poland or Lithuania and it could consolidate Belarusian independence from Moscow.
No one locally wants Kaliningrad - Putin like dreams of taking land full of people who don’t want to be conquered are not a thing even among the ultranationalists in the region.
The rejection of irredentism comes from the analysis that unless all the states near Russia band together, they will be used as chew toys by Russia. As happened in the past. So accepting the existing borders is the first step.
Yes, if they Kremlin had been smarter they could have offered Kaliningrad to Germany in exchange for Western recognition of the annexation of Crimea.
Why offer a swap when you can take by violence? They did not need to ask permission, they had already taken it.
Yes but they wanted to have it recognised and sanctions to be lifted. Putin didn't like being frozen out of the G8.
I am trying to imagine Merkel’s reaction to such an offer.
Probably a bit like the King Of Belgium, when the Kaiser offered him (pre WWI) large chunks of France in return for letting the Germans march threw Belgium when the time came…
The Belgian King made a joke about the days of Louis The Fourteenth being long gone. Then drove home with his ceremonial helmet on backwards. And told the French that the Kaiser was insane.
The pre-war German plan was to annex large parts of Belgium and make a vassal state out of the rest.
Kaiser Fuckwit came up with his genius suggestion on the spur of the moment - compensating the Belgians with a huge chunk of France….
I think Von Manstein (supposedly one of the greatest German generals of all time) has to go down in history for his grasp of strategy and politics.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
That after the war, it would all be treated as a friendly game of tiddlywinks.
A lot of senior Germans and indeed Nazi officials imagined a defeat, followed by peace negotiations, and settling down again to run the country. They seemed to lack the understanding of just what was coming down the line. As the probably apocryphal story about Stalingrad being a glimpse of what would happen to Berlin, the attrocitites committed in the East meant nothing short of total destruction and surrender would be permitted. Some also hoped that the western allies would see sense and join the fight to repel the Russians.
A few western Generals like Patton also wanted to join the fight against the Russians!
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Ed Balls to pay the window cleaner....
Read that as Ed Balls to play the window cleaner, and got thinking of soft porn and Norman Wisdom…
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Within limits: if I'm a car dealer and you come with a collection of 20p and 50p pieces to buy a car, then there's an enormous burden on me to confirm that all the money is there.
50ps and 20ps are already only legal tender up to a collective value of £10.
Seems sensible.
There is a an old story that one of the old time East End gangsters bought a Rolls for cash, late on a Friday, after the banks closed.
Then sent his boys round to open the safe at the car dealers that weekend....
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
If cash goes out and that means we have to suffer the indignity of free toilets, it'll be a bitter blow for the country
Most have contactless. The more expensive the public toilet, the more likely I would use one. Honestly, I'd pay £10.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
Certainly a nice story. It has felt at times that the role the UK has occupied has been that of major (not great) power being bullish, to test the waters for the big brother of the USA to provide the major kit (whilst Poland provides the most immediate support and even more bullishness from the 'neighbouring power' position). Especially as some of our kit is not standard apparently, so cannot be a major long term thing.
They're el hefe, we're the gobby sidekick. Not sure why that gives you such a warm glow, but you do you.
I support the goal of arming Ukraine, and so I do get a warm feeling about working together to achieve that. If that means adopting a role appopriate to our geopolitical situation, rather than pretending to some superpower status or faux pacificistic 'neutrality' with delusions of living in a non-global world, so be it.
Not sure why you're pretending to be stupid, which you're not, to not understand that, rather than simply disagree with it, but you do you.
Your position re America is well known, but one mistake you continually make is assuming that someone supporting the UK/USA position on Ukraine must therefore be content with any action in alignment with US interests. And that is simply not the case - but on this one, anything the UK can do to assist the US, who provide all the muscle, to assist Ukraine? Yes, I am happy for that.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
Parking where they only accept digital payment, via one of the 20,000 different bloody apps is absolutely the worst.
[snip]
...often in a mobile no service area here in Dorset, just to add to the challenge.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Are you @Anabobazina in disguise?? Must I really post this again??
Cash is still the primary means of payment (and store of value) for unbanked people with a low income and helps avoiding debt traps due to uncontrolled spending of money. It supports anonymity and avoids tracking for economic or political reasons.[29] In addition, cash is the only means for contingency planning in order to mitigate risks in case of natural disasters or failures of the technical infrastructure like a large-scale power blackout or shutdown of the communication network.[30] Therefore, central banks and governments are increasingly driving the sufficient availability of cash. The US Federal Reserve has provided guidelines for the continuity of cash services,[31] and the Swedish government is concerned about the consequences in abandoning cash and is considering to pass a law requiring all banks to handle cash.[32]
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
Parking where they only accept digital payment, via one of the 20,000 different bloody apps is absolutely the worst.
[snip]
...often in a mobile no service area here in Dorset, just to add to the challenge.
I’d outlaw parking apps. Tap and go machines only.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Still think below a certain size we should allow card only. Help small businesses reduce fixed costs.
If we are going to go down mandating cash let's make cash more efficient. Remove 1p, 2p and 5p from circulation. They are all worth much less than 1p was back when decimalisation occured.
Anyone under the age of about 65 isn’t going to care about cash in times to come. It is time to transition away, this society has spent far too long at the whims of people who will be dead soon.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Sadly this is spot on.
It seems one of the biggest issues for the elderly is parking apps
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
Who does 'need' to use cash?
Many elderly but mainly for small things like parking, using toilets, and giving to local charity collections
If cash goes out and that means we have to suffer the indignity of free toilets, it'll be a bitter blow for the country
Most have contactless. The more expensive the public toilet, the more likely I would use one. Honestly, I'd pay £10.
Cheaper to buy a coffee in a Costa or similar and use their loo, surely?
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
A right to cash needs to be legislated for..
If Labour were serious they would pledge this. It might even win them some votes too.
It would be a strong signal that they are completely out of touch with young people and desperate for the reactionary pensioner vote.
Could very well work.
But it's deeply weird how "the vibe" of this seems to trigger another front in the culture wars, with people lining up on either side of it and then plucking out any argument that suits to fight it, with particular zealotry if it trolls the other.
We all used cash until literally about 5 minutes ago. It's absurd to say it's reactionary or out of touch to advocate for its continued relevance.
Your card machine or signal goes down you have no means to trade, except barter.
Anyone under the age of about 65 isn’t going to care about cash in times to come. It is time to transition away, this society has spent far too long at the whims of people who will be dead soon.
Someone aged 65 can reasonably hope for 20 more years. That’s 4-5 electoral cycles, or a round twenty Tory PM’s.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Still think below a certain size we should allow card only. Help small businesses reduce fixed costs.
If we are going to go down mandating cash let's make cash more efficient. Remove 1p, 2p and 5p from circulation. They are all worth much less than 1p was back when decimalisation occured.
I'm old enough to remember when businesses didn't take card transactions for less than £5 or £10 due to the bank charges.
Anyone under the age of about 65 isn’t going to care about cash in times to come. It is time to transition away, this society has spent far too long at the whims of people who will be dead soon.
You will be elderly someday and I hope nobody would want you dead
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
A right to cash needs to be legislated for..
If Labour were serious they would pledge this. It might even win them some votes too.
They can just say they'll review the possibility of legislating for it, and then let MPs take up any position they like on it.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
Perhaps a reasonable compromise between the interests of businesses and 'left behind' consumers would be to mandate businesses over a certain size to accept cash payments. Before the trend spreads too far.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
The more people don't take cash the more I want to bloody well use it.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
You can't always have what you want. Market forces and all that.
What's needed is an electronic version of cash which makes the transfer anonymously
I'm discovering an increasing number of venues and vendors that refuse to take cash.
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
It's going to become widespread.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
And rightly so. Cash is pointless, wasteful, risky and completely outdated. The idea many of us will still be carting around slips of paper that, if taken from our person, make us poorer in any volume for much longer is for the birds. I never use cash for anything, home or abroad. Why does anyone?
Comments
I don't think balancing the books will be sacrificed for a tax cut next spring. There will be a modest one and Rishi will go into the next GE pledging to progressively cut tax further each year during the next parliament, as he gets a grip.
But other than that, I think those observations are spot on.
Successive British prime ministers — there have been three since the war started, all from the Conservative Party — have been of one mind on helping Kyiv claw back territory. The U.K. 's support for Ukraine is unusual in the fact that it transcends party lines in Britain, with the opposition Labour Party being as hawkish if not more so than the ruling Tories.
British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace is almost universally admired for his wartime stewardship of security assistance. In an interview for Yahoo News in May, Wallace’s Ukrainian counterpart Oleksii Reznikov said that in the UK is the one country whose electoral outcome he doesn’t agonize over, as the “opposition is as strong as the current government in terms of supporting us.”
https://news.yahoo.com/how-the-uk-helped-convince-the-us-and-its-allies-to-spend-big-to-help-ukraine-in-its-war-with-russia-193918302.html
Something really needs to be done about this. It's not legal tender if it can't be used and cash is starting to effectively become unusable and locking options and people out of the economy.
But PB Tories are wearing a pair of these
so only sees
congogglevision (c) - available under the counter at all good Conservative Clubs.
I was looking at some data, and the difference in insurance when you are a cashless business and a business that does keep cash on site/take cash to a bank is quite large.
Once dismissed by Hitler he used all his family life savings to buy an estate in East Prussia. In October 1944. It was overrun by the Soviets less than 3 months later.
What the fuck was he thinking?
Apparently, because they are Amazon account only, they are “hostile”
The latest design uses full height doors, so potential thieves can’t jump over the entry turnstiles.
Then again, if you decriminalise shoplifting, then something has to give….
Bill Cash right?
But then so do the anti-cash fanatics.
The opposition was pretty onboard during the pandemic as well - much recrimination now, sure, but we never got that much partisan bickering over vaccines for example.
While as already pointed out in rural areas the Tories are still 5% ahead on the Survation poll. So pick one seat which suits your argument, I have given 2 seats which support my argument and as mentioned added the rural seats poll too!
Anyway, get rid of cash and people will just move to gold as an alternative.
I don't carry cash so it doesn't effect me, but the potential for locking people out of the economy is real.
But I suspect the government would secretly like a society where all transactions are more easily monitored.
Rural areas will always mostly vote Tory even in heavy Tory defeats, just as inner city areas will always mostly vote Labour even in heavy Labour defeats like 1983 or 2019
https://twitter.com/Tendar/status/1665796654295908353
The elderly are far from irrelevant, and maybe you should check out the views of their children and grandchildren before making such immature comments
But in any event they should all be avoided as ultra-processed foods:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-65754290
Also most toilets require coinage and of course local charity collections
The idea it should be abolished altogether is unwise and while cash will be less important I see it here for the long term
Mind you I do not use cash myself but I respect those who need to
The Wehrmacht were superb at operations and tactics. At politics, intelligence and grand strategy they were delinquent.
If Labour were serious they would pledge this. It might even win them some votes too.
Coins and notes are legal tender. You trade, you take it.
No ifs, no buts.
Some also hoped that the western allies would see sense and join the fight to repel the Russians.
CASH.
Could very well work.
Seems sensible.
Interesting.
Bring back Corbynator, who would nationalise the whole system under one crap app.
The Kaiser came up with his piece of genius on the spot, without asking anyone.
"How does this sound - we invade, steal half your country, but hey, we will give you lots of land from your neighbours to make up for it. Trust me, it's a steal of a deal."
The only real way to teach kids this stuff is to weigh out silver bullion and send them to the local market. If they don't come back with the requisite stock, beat them.
He's like his grandparents, saves, saves, saves.
I don't want my kids glued to their phone. And I also want them to develop good mental arithmetic and a feel for the real tangibility of money.
Then sent his boys round to open the safe at the car dealers that weekend....
Not sure why you're pretending to be stupid, which you're not, to not understand that, rather than simply disagree with it, but you do you.
Your position re America is well known, but one mistake you continually make is assuming that someone supporting the UK/USA position on Ukraine must therefore be content with any action in alignment with US interests. And that is simply not the case - but on this one, anything the UK can do to assist the US, who provide all the muscle, to assist Ukraine? Yes, I am happy for that.
Cash is still the primary means of payment (and store of value) for unbanked people with a low income and helps avoiding debt traps due to uncontrolled spending of money. It supports anonymity and avoids tracking for economic or political reasons.[29] In addition, cash is the only means for contingency planning in order to mitigate risks in case of natural disasters or failures of the technical infrastructure like a large-scale power blackout or shutdown of the communication network.[30] Therefore, central banks and governments are increasingly driving the sufficient availability of cash. The US Federal Reserve has provided guidelines for the continuity of cash services,[31] and the Swedish government is concerned about the consequences in abandoning cash and is considering to pass a law requiring all banks to handle cash.[32]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cash#Competition_of_cash
If we are going to go down mandating cash let's make cash more efficient. Remove 1p, 2p and 5p from circulation. They are all worth much less than 1p was back when decimalisation occured.
We all used cash until literally about 5 minutes ago. It's absurd to say it's reactionary or out of touch to advocate for its continued relevance.
Your card machine or signal goes down you have no means to trade, except barter.
We've all been there.
It was all the way back in 2017.
https://www.airportia.com/flights/ba121/london/cincinnati/