Sue Gray. Cleared by ACOBA. Still being pursued by Tories pissed off that their target has wriggled off the hook by means of not having done the thing they accused her of.
Bless them. They should have put "STOP SUE GRAY" on a lectern and claimed it to be one of the people's priorities.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
You just hope that somebody did a bit of due diligence before launching an inquiry and checked there were no emails from Sue Gray...
I can see it now. PMQs on Wednesday. The PM criticises the LOTO. Throws in a jibe about Sue Gray. The LOTO stands up and says no rules were broken. "Here's the email from Sue Gray to the Cabinet Secretary. I was copied into it. It's not my fault that he doesn't open or read his emails".
I have a feeling that this will come back to bite the Government on the backside.
I try to feel proud of our island heritage, but thinking a large pit makes a decent monument is a bit primitive even for 10,000 BC, is it not? A bit off the Gobekli Tepe pace.
Proto-Keynesians, no doubt. Location checks out.
Bit difficult to develop an advanced civilisation form scratch in glacial or permafrost conditions.
Also, bloody difficult digging pits.
The pits are presumably artefacts of the large scale reoccupation of the land as it became more habitable.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
And this is a bad thing because why?
What's he moaning about? He can tick off his bucket list "Visit Hielanman's Umbrella at 2am on a Sunday" without having to go there.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Bit of a stretch to call it an enquiry in respect of that. ...Cabinet Office minister Jeremy Quin said the Whitehall inquiry found the code "was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the Leader of the Opposition." He said Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations but chose not to do so...
Sue Gray. Cleared by ACOBA. Still being pursued by Tories pissed off that their target has wriggled off the hook by means of not having done the thing they accused her of.
Bless them. They should have put "STOP SUE GRAY" on a lectern and claimed it to be one of the people's priorities.
The Civil Service advised Quin not to publish the kangaroo court result on the grounds of GDPR.
Just caught the clip of Bairstow being run out and it's funnier than I imagined. They way the keeper threw at the stumps straight away, knowing ginge would wander off. The crowd booing because they're thick as shit. The blank confusion on Bairstow's face.
They pulled his trousers down and spanked his arse in broad daylight. Amazing.
That's disappointing from you - didn't have you down as a sporting anglo-phobe.
I'm not always. I loved England's win in 2005. But I was always rooting for this Australia over this England, and today's shenanigans really tickled me.
Odd.
How so? I don't have to stay loyal to a team. In 2005 I liked Flintoff and Pietersen. I also liked Warne and Lee. I didn't like Vaughan or Ponting. On balance I found England much more pleasing that time around. But this time around I like Australia much better. If England play Hungary in the football I'll support England. If they play Italy, I'll support Italy. England's just another country which I like and dislike depending on who's on the field. It's how most people feel about most countries other than their own, I think.
Hmm. Okay. You have a strange way about sporting loyalties - i.e. yours are entirely ad hoc. I'm not going to condemn it if that is your bag, but 'unusual' is not the word.
Yes, sport, insofar as it's worth anything, is a celebration of physical and psychological creativity and prowess. You can enjoy it and be impressed by it without chaining yourself to a particular team. I have instinctive preferences like everyone else but they aren't in control. If I like what I see from a sportsperson, I will want them to do well. And Australian cricket has a tendency of producing the kinds of characters that make for highly entertaining sport. So I "lean" Australia. But back in 2005, I couldn't help thinking I liked Freddie Flintoff way more than Ricky fucking Ponting.
And before anybody accuses me of being a glory hunter, it's not like that. In football I despise the big teams like City, Man U, Liverpool. They are all moneybags bastards who suck the soul out of the game. Give me a Brighton or a Brentford instead. Or even an Aberdeen.
Sporting desires are like sexual ones - they don't lend themselves to rules or to logic. I'm English and I do usually support England (as I am 100% in this Ashes) but not always. Eg I was jubilant when the West Indies beat us in that dramatic 20/20 final in 2016. Why? I have no idea.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
Buckfast Powersmash is one of those drinks so awful that it's good. Was in the tattier of the village shops when a guy was in buying a few bottles. And looked like he is a regular drinker of the stuff.
Was then amazed to see a Buckie trade stand at a food expo a few months back. They were pushing the "made by monks" line really hard and getting "ooh that's interesting" responses from trade buyers. FFS no, you really don't need Buckfast punters in your shop. Its like being a proud seller of Lambrini and McEwan's Export.
Buckie punters are actually *upmarket* by the standards of your average jaikie on Union Street or the Sautmarket. Before the alcohol pricing controls came in in particular, you could get smashed far more cheaply on other stuff, and I believe the differential is still there even now if not so marked. (Sudden thought: does the origin of Buckie correlate with its sales in Glasgow to different football club supporters? Never heard of such a thing, though.)
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
Our school has a summer fare and Christmas fare where bottles are donated in the build-up and then won at tombolas and I swear the same bottles keep getting recycled. Its highly efficient if you think about it.
Last summer we won a bottle of mulled wine at the summer fare, I'm guessing whoever donated that had won it the previous Christmas fare as its an odd thing to donate at summer otherwise. We donated it back six months later for the Christmas fare. At Christmas we then won some other bottles, we drank one of those and the others we donated back to the summer fare.
The school makes its money from a tombola with these bottles. They don't care about the price tag of the bottles, or if its the first of 7th time the same bottle has gone around so long as its in date, they're getting their funds either way each time its done. 🤷♂️
Does nothing for GDP though and surely that is the aim of the school governers.
Y = C + I + G + (X - M)
Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y.
The bottle of wine was part of I in the year of its import. It cannot be counted twice.
Edit: and if it was a British bottle of wine then it is a second hand good and hence it would be the same as two people swapping a five pound note.
I is Investment, M is iMports and M is a negative not a positive on the equation.
That is the point, a second hand bottle of wine doesn't increase M, whereas a newly imported bottle of wine would.
The money the school raises from the Tombola does boost C when they spend it.
Hence Y goes up.
But you were talking about second hand (revolving) bottles of wine.
Yep - and 1 way of increasing GDP is to increase the velocity of money - i.e. how many times it's spent over a year.
No it isn't. If there is increased activity then velocity of money might be expected to increase but if you and I handed each other £5 20 times every hour for the same bottle of wine that would do nothing for GDP.
You don't seem to be grasping the whole concept.
I and all other parents donate a prize to the school in the build-up to the fare. This was done twice in recent weeks where the school had a casual clothes Friday and asked for a donation to the fare as the 'fee' for the casual clothes each time.
I and other parents then pay money to the school to take part in the tombola where as a class the parents win back the prizes they just donated, but shuffled around essentially.
This ends with the parents having swapped around bottles basically, while the school ends up with money without paying out anything.
The school can then spend its money as it sees fit. Which presumably is not bottles of wine.
The school spending the money it received from the tombola absolutely does do something for GDP.
If you and I hand the school £5 20 times for the same bottle of wine, then it ends up with the wine remaining with one of us where it started and the school £100 up. And that £100 being spent on supplies for the school does do something for GDP.
If the 2 of us are swapping the same bottle of wine ad nauseum then we are not handing the £5 to each other each time, we're handing it to the school each time.
We can forget the wine as it is an existing asset. Buying or selling it has no effect on GDP. So you are in effect handing the school £5. So the school has +£5 and you have -£5. C is unaffected.
Which brings us full circle to what I said at the start.
The school won't save the money, they will spend it, and as they do, C goes up, so GDP goes up.
You said "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
Which is irrelevant to our discussion.
You gave the school £5 but you now can't spend it. If you are talking about consumption vs savings then you should have made that explicit.
They can spend (C)
Yes I can't spend it, but that's neither here nor there unless I was going to spend it. They can. That is C, that is velocity of money, that is GDP.
Yes I may have equally spent it, in which case if I had that would have also been contributing to GDP, but that is neither here nor there.
You could have spent it or they could have spent it. But giving a recycled bottle of wine to a school tombola doesn't affect GDP because you both could spend the £5. You are just outsourcing your consumption to the school.
You don't know that I and every other parent who engaged in the tombola will have spent that money.
We do know that the school will.
So no, consumption is not unchanged unless every single penny of the school's expenditure is met by a corresponding reduction in consumption by every single parent who took part.
What if the school has a sinking fund that is under-funded?
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
Our school has a summer fare and Christmas fare where bottles are donated in the build-up and then won at tombolas and I swear the same bottles keep getting recycled. Its highly efficient if you think about it.
Last summer we won a bottle of mulled wine at the summer fare, I'm guessing whoever donated that had won it the previous Christmas fare as its an odd thing to donate at summer otherwise. We donated it back six months later for the Christmas fare. At Christmas we then won some other bottles, we drank one of those and the others we donated back to the summer fare.
The school makes its money from a tombola with these bottles. They don't care about the price tag of the bottles, or if its the first of 7th time the same bottle has gone around so long as its in date, they're getting their funds either way each time its done. 🤷♂️
Does nothing for GDP though and surely that is the aim of the school governers.
Y = C + I + G + (X - M)
Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y.
The bottle of wine was part of I in the year of its import. It cannot be counted twice.
Edit: and if it was a British bottle of wine then it is a second hand good and hence it would be the same as two people swapping a five pound note.
I is Investment, M is iMports and M is a negative not a positive on the equation.
That is the point, a second hand bottle of wine doesn't increase M, whereas a newly imported bottle of wine would.
The money the school raises from the Tombola does boost C when they spend it.
Hence Y goes up.
But you were talking about second hand (revolving) bottles of wine.
Yep - and 1 way of increasing GDP is to increase the velocity of money - i.e. how many times it's spent over a year.
No it isn't. If there is increased activity then velocity of money might be expected to increase but if you and I handed each other £5 20 times every hour for the same bottle of wine that would do nothing for GDP.
You don't seem to be grasping the whole concept.
I and all other parents donate a prize to the school in the build-up to the fare. This was done twice in recent weeks where the school had a casual clothes Friday and asked for a donation to the fare as the 'fee' for the casual clothes each time.
I and other parents then pay money to the school to take part in the tombola where as a class the parents win back the prizes they just donated, but shuffled around essentially.
This ends with the parents having swapped around bottles basically, while the school ends up with money without paying out anything.
The school can then spend its money as it sees fit. Which presumably is not bottles of wine.
The school spending the money it received from the tombola absolutely does do something for GDP.
If you and I hand the school £5 20 times for the same bottle of wine, then it ends up with the wine remaining with one of us where it started and the school £100 up. And that £100 being spent on supplies for the school does do something for GDP.
If the 2 of us are swapping the same bottle of wine ad nauseum then we are not handing the £5 to each other each time, we're handing it to the school each time.
We can forget the wine as it is an existing asset. Buying or selling it has no effect on GDP. So you are in effect handing the school £5. So the school has +£5 and you have -£5. C is unaffected.
Which brings us full circle to what I said at the start.
The school won't save the money, they will spend it, and as they do, C goes up, so GDP goes up.
You said "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
Which is irrelevant to our discussion.
You gave the school £5 but you now can't spend it. If you are talking about consumption vs savings then you should have made that explicit.
They can spend (C)
Yes I can't spend it, but that's neither here nor there unless I was going to spend it. They can. That is C, that is velocity of money, that is GDP.
Yes I may have equally spent it, in which case if I had that would have also been contributing to GDP, but that is neither here nor there.
You could have spent it or they could have spent it. But giving a recycled bottle of wine to a school tombola doesn't affect GDP because you both could spend the £5. You are just outsourcing your consumption to the school.
You don't know that I and every other parent who engaged in the tombola will have spent that money.
We do know that the school will.
So no, consumption is not unchanged unless every single penny of the school's expenditure is met by a corresponding reduction in consumption by every single parent who took part.
What if the school has a sinking fund that is under-funded?
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
I never said that giving a second hand bottle of wine increases GDP.
I said that giving money to the school to spend (C) in exchange for a donated bottle of wine does, since the school will spend the money and that is C, and C feeds into Y.
You are making all sorts of tenuous assumptions that the C the school will do, the reason its fundraising, would have been made anyway by others but that is unknown and unknowable. All that is known is the school will spend the money, and that will contribute to C and that will feed to Y. That is the economics of it.
Sue Gray. Cleared by ACOBA. Still being pursued by Tories pissed off that their target has wriggled off the hook by means of not having done the thing they accused her of.
Bless them. They should have put "STOP SUE GRAY" on a lectern and claimed it to be one of the people's priorities.
The Civil Service advised Quin not to publish the kangaroo court result on the grounds of GDPR.
Lesson of the day: Don't piss off Simon Case.
Lesson of the day is kick out the administration that he serves.
Professionally I have a new excuse to pass onto a customer as to why their delivery is not coming - your truck was hijacked and torched coming out of the warehouse near Lyon.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
No they haven't.
Appearances are everything. I don't mean that they have undermined the truth of it. Johnson was banged to rights. They have given more fodder to those that want their gullible followers to not trust our institutions.
Just caught the clip of Bairstow being run out and it's funnier than I imagined. They way the keeper threw at the stumps straight away, knowing ginge would wander off. The crowd booing because they're thick as shit. The blank confusion on Bairstow's face.
They pulled his trousers down and spanked his arse in broad daylight. Amazing.
That's disappointing from you - didn't have you down as a sporting anglo-phobe.
I'm not always. I loved England's win in 2005. But I was always rooting for this Australia over this England, and today's shenanigans really tickled me.
Odd.
How so? I don't have to stay loyal to a team. In 2005 I liked Flintoff and Pietersen. I also liked Warne and Lee. I didn't like Vaughan or Ponting. On balance I found England much more pleasing that time around. But this time around I like Australia much better. If England play Hungary in the football I'll support England. If they play Italy, I'll support Italy. England's just another country which I like and dislike depending on who's on the field. It's how most people feel about most countries other than their own, I think.
Hmm. Okay. You have a strange way about sporting loyalties - i.e. yours are entirely ad hoc. I'm not going to condemn it if that is your bag, but 'unusual' is not the word.
Yes, sport, insofar as it's worth anything, is a celebration of physical and psychological creativity and prowess. You can enjoy it and be impressed by it without chaining yourself to a particular team. I have instinctive preferences like everyone else but they aren't in control. If I like what I see from a sportsperson, I will want them to do well. And Australian cricket has a tendency of producing the kinds of characters that make for highly entertaining sport. So I "lean" Australia. But back in 2005, I couldn't help thinking I liked Freddie Flintoff way more than Ricky fucking Ponting.
And before anybody accuses me of being a glory hunter, it's not like that. In football I despise the big teams like City, Man U, Liverpool. They are all moneybags bastards who suck the soul out of the game. Give me a Brighton or a Brentford instead. Or even an Aberdeen.
Sporting desires are like sexual ones - they don't lend themselves to rules or to logic. I'm English and I do usually support England (as I am 100% in this Ashes) but not always. Eg I was jubilant when the West Indies beat us in that dramatic 20/20 final in 2016. Why? I have no idea.
Suddenly my love of the 100m takes on a disturbing air. All over in under ten seconds.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
The thing is, Starmer is confident that no rules were broken/have been broken. You don't say something like that - especially at the Despatch Box - without being absolutely sure of the facts.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
Buckfast Powersmash is one of those drinks so awful that it's good. Was in the tattier of the village shops when a guy was in buying a few bottles. And looked like he is a regular drinker of the stuff.
Was then amazed to see a Buckie trade stand at a food expo a few months back. They were pushing the "made by monks" line really hard and getting "ooh that's interesting" responses from trade buyers. FFS no, you really don't need Buckfast punters in your shop. Its like being a proud seller of Lambrini and McEwan's Export.
Buckie punters are actually *upmarket* by the standards of your average jaikie on Union Street or the Sautmarket. Before the alcohol pricing controls came in in particular, you could get smashed far more cheaply on other stuff, and I believe the differential is still there even now if not so marked. (Sudden thought: does the origin of Buckie correlate with its sales in Glasgow to different football club supporters? Never heard of such a thing, though.)
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
So you disrespecting The Noble Majesty of The Cabinet Office.
Isn’t this An Attack On Our Democracy which requires a cremation without the option of a fine? Or is it Free Speech?
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
No they haven't.
Appearances are everything. I don't mean that they have undermined the truth of it. Johnson was banged to rights. They have given more fodder to those that want their gullible followers to not trust our institutions.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
Our school has a summer fare and Christmas fare where bottles are donated in the build-up and then won at tombolas and I swear the same bottles keep getting recycled. Its highly efficient if you think about it.
Last summer we won a bottle of mulled wine at the summer fare, I'm guessing whoever donated that had won it the previous Christmas fare as its an odd thing to donate at summer otherwise. We donated it back six months later for the Christmas fare. At Christmas we then won some other bottles, we drank one of those and the others we donated back to the summer fare.
The school makes its money from a tombola with these bottles. They don't care about the price tag of the bottles, or if its the first of 7th time the same bottle has gone around so long as its in date, they're getting their funds either way each time its done. 🤷♂️
Does nothing for GDP though and surely that is the aim of the school governers.
Y = C + I + G + (X - M)
Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y.
The bottle of wine was part of I in the year of its import. It cannot be counted twice.
Edit: and if it was a British bottle of wine then it is a second hand good and hence it would be the same as two people swapping a five pound note.
I is Investment, M is iMports and M is a negative not a positive on the equation.
That is the point, a second hand bottle of wine doesn't increase M, whereas a newly imported bottle of wine would.
The money the school raises from the Tombola does boost C when they spend it.
Hence Y goes up.
But you were talking about second hand (revolving) bottles of wine.
Yep - and 1 way of increasing GDP is to increase the velocity of money - i.e. how many times it's spent over a year.
No it isn't. If there is increased activity then velocity of money might be expected to increase but if you and I handed each other £5 20 times every hour for the same bottle of wine that would do nothing for GDP.
You don't seem to be grasping the whole concept.
I and all other parents donate a prize to the school in the build-up to the fare. This was done twice in recent weeks where the school had a casual clothes Friday and asked for a donation to the fare as the 'fee' for the casual clothes each time.
I and other parents then pay money to the school to take part in the tombola where as a class the parents win back the prizes they just donated, but shuffled around essentially.
This ends with the parents having swapped around bottles basically, while the school ends up with money without paying out anything.
The school can then spend its money as it sees fit. Which presumably is not bottles of wine.
The school spending the money it received from the tombola absolutely does do something for GDP.
If you and I hand the school £5 20 times for the same bottle of wine, then it ends up with the wine remaining with one of us where it started and the school £100 up. And that £100 being spent on supplies for the school does do something for GDP.
If the 2 of us are swapping the same bottle of wine ad nauseum then we are not handing the £5 to each other each time, we're handing it to the school each time.
We can forget the wine as it is an existing asset. Buying or selling it has no effect on GDP. So you are in effect handing the school £5. So the school has +£5 and you have -£5. C is unaffected.
Which brings us full circle to what I said at the start.
The school won't save the money, they will spend it, and as they do, C goes up, so GDP goes up.
You said "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
Which is irrelevant to our discussion.
You gave the school £5 but you now can't spend it. If you are talking about consumption vs savings then you should have made that explicit.
They can spend (C)
Yes I can't spend it, but that's neither here nor there unless I was going to spend it. They can. That is C, that is velocity of money, that is GDP.
Yes I may have equally spent it, in which case if I had that would have also been contributing to GDP, but that is neither here nor there.
You could have spent it or they could have spent it. But giving a recycled bottle of wine to a school tombola doesn't affect GDP because you both could spend the £5. You are just outsourcing your consumption to the school.
You don't know that I and every other parent who engaged in the tombola will have spent that money.
We do know that the school will.
So no, consumption is not unchanged unless every single penny of the school's expenditure is met by a corresponding reduction in consumption by every single parent who took part.
What if the school has a sinking fund that is under-funded?
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
I never said that giving a second hand bottle of wine increases GDP.
I said that giving money to the school to spend (C) in exchange for a donated bottle of wine does, since the school will spend the money and that is C, and C feeds into Y.
You are making all sorts of tenuous assumptions that the C the school will do, the reason its fundraising, would have been made anyway by others but that is unknown and unknowable. All that is known is the school will spend the money, and that will contribute to C and that will feed to Y. That is the economics of it.
Wrong. I said giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school doesn't increase GDP. You said it did ("boosts Y").
You said: "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school (avoiding the need to buy an imported bottle, as if this was relevant to the price of eggs) would increase GDP. It won't, necessarily. If the school spends it and you hadn't planned to then it would. If the school saves it then it wouldn't.
Just like if someone hadn't given them the bottle or you hadn't bought it. The donor hasn't increased GDP by giving them the bottle of wine because it is an existing asset. So when someone buys it they are just exchanging one asset (a good) for another (money). With no implications for GDP without knowing the school's or your spending and saving intentions.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Of course, as a good Lib Dem myself, excepting the 2015 GE, the Lib Dems were never NOT the third party.
Their vote share has been third every time except GE2015.
The failures of FPTP.........
"The failures of FPTP". Harsh, but fair (on the Lib Dems)
ETA: Always third on vote share, too? Or would that have been UKIP in 2015, say? E2TA: Ah yes, definitely UKIP in 2015. 12.6% v 7.9% E3TA: And, of course, this point was made in the very post I'm replying to, d'oh!
This post is an exemplar of a lot of science, but reproducibility is important.
I remember being quite excited about something I'd discovered during PhD research, tangential to my research, but I thought great, that's worth an extra paper. Re-doing the literature review while writing up the thesis, I found the original paper describing what I'd 'discovered' First published in 1920s
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
No they haven't.
Appearances are everything. I don't mean that they have undermined the truth of it. Johnson was banged to rights. They have given more fodder to those that want their gullible followers to not trust our institutions.
I am sorry to go all Malc on you, but here you are wrong.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
The thing is, Starmer is confident that no rules were broken/have been broken. You don't say something like that - especially at the Despatch Box - without being absolutely sure of the facts.
Sue Gray was all that voters were talking about, until that horrible ACOBA decided she and Labour had done nothing wrong. Happily we now have the lovely civil servants to prove* that she's a bad'un.
Just watch that Tory poll deficit disappear. People don't care about being able to pay their mortgage, that their community is scruffy and decayed, that half the services they need are still on strike. No, what they really want to do is expose the Massive Scandal that is the Labour Party hiring Sue Gray.
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
Our school has a summer fare and Christmas fare where bottles are donated in the build-up and then won at tombolas and I swear the same bottles keep getting recycled. Its highly efficient if you think about it.
Last summer we won a bottle of mulled wine at the summer fare, I'm guessing whoever donated that had won it the previous Christmas fare as its an odd thing to donate at summer otherwise. We donated it back six months later for the Christmas fare. At Christmas we then won some other bottles, we drank one of those and the others we donated back to the summer fare.
The school makes its money from a tombola with these bottles. They don't care about the price tag of the bottles, or if its the first of 7th time the same bottle has gone around so long as its in date, they're getting their funds either way each time its done. 🤷♂️
Does nothing for GDP though and surely that is the aim of the school governers.
Y = C + I + G + (X - M)
Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y.
The bottle of wine was part of I in the year of its import. It cannot be counted twice.
Edit: and if it was a British bottle of wine then it is a second hand good and hence it would be the same as two people swapping a five pound note.
I is Investment, M is iMports and M is a negative not a positive on the equation.
That is the point, a second hand bottle of wine doesn't increase M, whereas a newly imported bottle of wine would.
The money the school raises from the Tombola does boost C when they spend it.
Hence Y goes up.
But you were talking about second hand (revolving) bottles of wine.
Yep - and 1 way of increasing GDP is to increase the velocity of money - i.e. how many times it's spent over a year.
No it isn't. If there is increased activity then velocity of money might be expected to increase but if you and I handed each other £5 20 times every hour for the same bottle of wine that would do nothing for GDP.
You don't seem to be grasping the whole concept.
I and all other parents donate a prize to the school in the build-up to the fare. This was done twice in recent weeks where the school had a casual clothes Friday and asked for a donation to the fare as the 'fee' for the casual clothes each time.
I and other parents then pay money to the school to take part in the tombola where as a class the parents win back the prizes they just donated, but shuffled around essentially.
This ends with the parents having swapped around bottles basically, while the school ends up with money without paying out anything.
The school can then spend its money as it sees fit. Which presumably is not bottles of wine.
The school spending the money it received from the tombola absolutely does do something for GDP.
If you and I hand the school £5 20 times for the same bottle of wine, then it ends up with the wine remaining with one of us where it started and the school £100 up. And that £100 being spent on supplies for the school does do something for GDP.
If the 2 of us are swapping the same bottle of wine ad nauseum then we are not handing the £5 to each other each time, we're handing it to the school each time.
We can forget the wine as it is an existing asset. Buying or selling it has no effect on GDP. So you are in effect handing the school £5. So the school has +£5 and you have -£5. C is unaffected.
Which brings us full circle to what I said at the start.
The school won't save the money, they will spend it, and as they do, C goes up, so GDP goes up.
You said "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
Which is irrelevant to our discussion.
You gave the school £5 but you now can't spend it. If you are talking about consumption vs savings then you should have made that explicit.
They can spend (C)
Yes I can't spend it, but that's neither here nor there unless I was going to spend it. They can. That is C, that is velocity of money, that is GDP.
Yes I may have equally spent it, in which case if I had that would have also been contributing to GDP, but that is neither here nor there.
You could have spent it or they could have spent it. But giving a recycled bottle of wine to a school tombola doesn't affect GDP because you both could spend the £5. You are just outsourcing your consumption to the school.
You don't know that I and every other parent who engaged in the tombola will have spent that money.
We do know that the school will.
So no, consumption is not unchanged unless every single penny of the school's expenditure is met by a corresponding reduction in consumption by every single parent who took part.
What if the school has a sinking fund that is under-funded?
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
I never said that giving a second hand bottle of wine increases GDP.
I said that giving money to the school to spend (C) in exchange for a donated bottle of wine does, since the school will spend the money and that is C, and C feeds into Y.
You are making all sorts of tenuous assumptions that the C the school will do, the reason its fundraising, would have been made anyway by others but that is unknown and unknowable. All that is known is the school will spend the money, and that will contribute to C and that will feed to Y. That is the economics of it.
Wrong. I said giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school doesn't increase GDP. You said it did ("boosts Y").
You said: "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school (avoiding the need to buy an imported bottle, as if this was relevant to the price of eggs) would increase GDP. It won't, necessarily. If the school spends it and you hadn't planned to then it would. If the school saves it then it wouldn't.
Just like if someone hadn't given them the bottle or you hadn't bought it. The donor hasn't increased GDP by giving them the bottle of wine because it is an existing asset. So when someone buys it they are just exchanging one asset (a good) for another (money). With no implications for GDP without knowing the school's or your spending and saving intentions.
Words you claim I said: You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school ...
Words you quoted which I actually said: Giving them money they can then spend ...
Do you see the difference?
Incidentally many businesses make their living by buying commodities from a supplier then selling them to a consumer. Eg almost every shop in the country.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
Partisan?
A civil service report?
Are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the civil service?
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
BREAKING: Partygate investigator Sue Gray broke civil service rules “as a result of the undeclared contact” between her and the Labour Party, according to a Whitehall investigation. https://twitter.com/TalkTV/status/1675807612070252545
Boy, Simon Case really is as nasty and vindictive as he's useless isn't he?
So you disrespecting The Noble Majesty of The Cabinet Office.
Isn’t this An Attack On Our Democracy which requires a cremation without the option of a fine? Or is it Free Speech?
Sorry, lost my chest sheet for this.
I would never suggest cremating Case.
The oil in his manner might cause an uncontrolled conflagration.
Features Leon's sniper among the rioters, who was apparently very well prepared, having taken up position over a year ago!
The far right sources that Leon kept sharing were not accurate?
I am shocked, shocked at this turn of events.
I missed the context of this... was this after Leon was upbraiding me for defending mainstream media for not just rushing to broadcast any old shit someone says on Twitter? And then he got caught out by some misinformation? Delicious, but entirely predictable.
I do wish people would listen to me a bit more.
Unless I missed earlier posts, the order was slightly different:
Leon later upbraids you for defending mainstream media
I post the BBC article which has the questionable Tweet reported by Leon among its examples of misinformation
So no, it was before he was upbraiding you, I think.
Still delicious and entirely predictable.
* 1 'sniper' not snipers. No sign of any riot. As I posted, could be anyone, anywhere at any time (turns out to have been posted originally over a year ago)
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
Partisan?
A civil service report?
Are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the civil service?
Certainly not. I have every faith in the ACOBA investigation.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
Partisan?
A civil service report?
Are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the civil service?
Certainly not. I have every faith in the ACOBA investigation.
P.S. It looks like my first investigation was by a parking contractor (ACPOA). Although even if it was, it would have been completed with more integrity than the Cabinet Office report
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
Buckfast Powersmash is one of those drinks so awful that it's good. Was in the tattier of the village shops when a guy was in buying a few bottles. And looked like he is a regular drinker of the stuff.
Was then amazed to see a Buckie trade stand at a food expo a few months back. They were pushing the "made by monks" line really hard and getting "ooh that's interesting" responses from trade buyers. FFS no, you really don't need Buckfast punters in your shop. Its like being a proud seller of Lambrini and McEwan's Export.
Buckie punters are actually *upmarket* by the standards of your average jaikie on Union Street or the Sautmarket. Before the alcohol pricing controls came in in particular, you could get smashed far more cheaply on other stuff, and I believe the differential is still there even now if not so marked. (Sudden thought: does the origin of Buckie correlate with its sales in Glasgow to different football club supporters? Never heard of such a thing, though.)
Haw! THat's a good one. @Theuniondivvie and @malcolmg will like that. And the best bit is "The drink's UK manufacturers – who previously launched a gin with a similar name – deny targeting any specific demographic."
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
Our school has a summer fare and Christmas fare where bottles are donated in the build-up and then won at tombolas and I swear the same bottles keep getting recycled. Its highly efficient if you think about it.
Last summer we won a bottle of mulled wine at the summer fare, I'm guessing whoever donated that had won it the previous Christmas fare as its an odd thing to donate at summer otherwise. We donated it back six months later for the Christmas fare. At Christmas we then won some other bottles, we drank one of those and the others we donated back to the summer fare.
The school makes its money from a tombola with these bottles. They don't care about the price tag of the bottles, or if its the first of 7th time the same bottle has gone around so long as its in date, they're getting their funds either way each time its done. 🤷♂️
Does nothing for GDP though and surely that is the aim of the school governers.
Y = C + I + G + (X - M)
Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y.
The bottle of wine was part of I in the year of its import. It cannot be counted twice.
Edit: and if it was a British bottle of wine then it is a second hand good and hence it would be the same as two people swapping a five pound note.
I is Investment, M is iMports and M is a negative not a positive on the equation.
That is the point, a second hand bottle of wine doesn't increase M, whereas a newly imported bottle of wine would.
The money the school raises from the Tombola does boost C when they spend it.
Hence Y goes up.
But you were talking about second hand (revolving) bottles of wine.
Yep - and 1 way of increasing GDP is to increase the velocity of money - i.e. how many times it's spent over a year.
No it isn't. If there is increased activity then velocity of money might be expected to increase but if you and I handed each other £5 20 times every hour for the same bottle of wine that would do nothing for GDP.
You don't seem to be grasping the whole concept.
I and all other parents donate a prize to the school in the build-up to the fare. This was done twice in recent weeks where the school had a casual clothes Friday and asked for a donation to the fare as the 'fee' for the casual clothes each time.
I and other parents then pay money to the school to take part in the tombola where as a class the parents win back the prizes they just donated, but shuffled around essentially.
This ends with the parents having swapped around bottles basically, while the school ends up with money without paying out anything.
The school can then spend its money as it sees fit. Which presumably is not bottles of wine.
The school spending the money it received from the tombola absolutely does do something for GDP.
If you and I hand the school £5 20 times for the same bottle of wine, then it ends up with the wine remaining with one of us where it started and the school £100 up. And that £100 being spent on supplies for the school does do something for GDP.
If the 2 of us are swapping the same bottle of wine ad nauseum then we are not handing the £5 to each other each time, we're handing it to the school each time.
We can forget the wine as it is an existing asset. Buying or selling it has no effect on GDP. So you are in effect handing the school £5. So the school has +£5 and you have -£5. C is unaffected.
Which brings us full circle to what I said at the start.
The school won't save the money, they will spend it, and as they do, C goes up, so GDP goes up.
You said "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
Which is irrelevant to our discussion.
You gave the school £5 but you now can't spend it. If you are talking about consumption vs savings then you should have made that explicit.
They can spend (C)
Yes I can't spend it, but that's neither here nor there unless I was going to spend it. They can. That is C, that is velocity of money, that is GDP.
Yes I may have equally spent it, in which case if I had that would have also been contributing to GDP, but that is neither here nor there.
You could have spent it or they could have spent it. But giving a recycled bottle of wine to a school tombola doesn't affect GDP because you both could spend the £5. You are just outsourcing your consumption to the school.
You don't know that I and every other parent who engaged in the tombola will have spent that money.
We do know that the school will.
So no, consumption is not unchanged unless every single penny of the school's expenditure is met by a corresponding reduction in consumption by every single parent who took part.
What if the school has a sinking fund that is under-funded?
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
I never said that giving a second hand bottle of wine increases GDP.
I said that giving money to the school to spend (C) in exchange for a donated bottle of wine does, since the school will spend the money and that is C, and C feeds into Y.
You are making all sorts of tenuous assumptions that the C the school will do, the reason its fundraising, would have been made anyway by others but that is unknown and unknowable. All that is known is the school will spend the money, and that will contribute to C and that will feed to Y. That is the economics of it.
Wrong. I said giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school doesn't increase GDP. You said it did ("boosts Y").
You said: "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school (avoiding the need to buy an imported bottle, as if this was relevant to the price of eggs) would increase GDP. It won't, necessarily. If the school spends it and you hadn't planned to then it would. If the school saves it then it wouldn't.
Just like if someone hadn't given them the bottle or you hadn't bought it. The donor hasn't increased GDP by giving them the bottle of wine because it is an existing asset. So when someone buys it they are just exchanging one asset (a good) for another (money). With no implications for GDP without knowing the school's or your spending and saving intentions.
Words you claim I said: You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school ...
Words you quoted which I actually said: Giving them money they can then spend ...
Do you see the difference?
Incidentally many businesses make their living by buying commodities from a supplier then selling them to a consumer. Eg almost every shop in the country.
What's that got to do with the price of eggs?
Those commodities have likely had value added. Exchange of existing assets is GDP neutral.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
Of course, as a good Lib Dem myself, excepting the 2015 GE, the Lib Dems were never NOT the third party.
Their vote share has been third every time except GE2015.
The failures of FPTP.........
"The failures of FPTP". Harsh, but fair (on the Lib Dems)
ETA: Always third on vote share, too? Or would that have been UKIP in 2015, say? E2TA: Ah yes, definitely UKIP in 2015. 12.6% v 7.9% E3TA: And, of course, this point was made in the very post I'm replying to, d'oh!
This post is an exemplar of a lot of science, but reproducibility is important.
I remember being quite excited about something I'd discovered during PhD research, tangential to my research, but I thought great, that's worth an extra paper. Re-doing the literature review while writing up the thesis, I found the original paper describing what I'd 'discovered' First published in 1920s
Better that than submitting a paper to a journal and having the referee point it out (and possibly stop writing after "This paper is not original, as the work was done in 1925 by Bloggs et al. I reject it.")
Almost as cheap as the bottle of wine Sunak donated.
At least it wasn’t Buckfast!
An American wine connoisseur made the mistake of reviewing buckfast… Here’s their tasting notes:
Buckfast Tonic Wine (No Vintage)
Screw cap, took it off about 30 minutes before to bring in some air. Apparently made by monks in England. Decided to try while cooking dinner. Poured into a glass, first glance has a very inky almost brownish color that you see in older wines. Very syrupy, liquid clings to the side of the glass when swirled. Almost 15% ABV.
Stuck my nose in and was hit with something I’ve never experienced before. Barnyardy funk (in a bad way) almost like a dead animal in a bird’s nest. A mix of flat Coca Cola and caramel with a whiff of gun metal.
On the palate, overwhelming sweetness and sugar. Cherry Cola mixed with Benadryl. Unlike anything I’ve tasted. I’m not sure what this liquid is but it is not wine, I’m actually not sure what it is but it tastes like something a doctor would prescribe. A chemical concoction of the highest degree. Can only compare it to a Four Loko.
Managed to make it through a couple small glasses but not much more. Has absolutely ruined the evening drinking-wise for me as I tried to drink a nice Bordeaux after but the iron-like metallic sweet aftertaste I just couldn’t get out of my mouth even after a few glasses of water. I don’t drink a lot of coffee regularly so I also have mild heart palpitations from the caffeine after just drinking a bit of this and feel a slight migraine.
An ungodly concoction made by seemingly godly men. I believe the Vatican needs to send an exorcist over to Buckfast Abbey as the devil’s works are cleary present there. After tasting this “wine,” the way I feel can only be described as akin to being under a bridge on one’s knees orally pleasing a vagrant while simultaneously drinking liquified meth through a dirty rag.
I’ve drank a lot of wines in my life and will never forget this one.
Buckfast Powersmash is one of those drinks so awful that it's good. Was in the tattier of the village shops when a guy was in buying a few bottles. And looked like he is a regular drinker of the stuff.
Was then amazed to see a Buckie trade stand at a food expo a few months back. They were pushing the "made by monks" line really hard and getting "ooh that's interesting" responses from trade buyers. FFS no, you really don't need Buckfast punters in your shop. Its like being a proud seller of Lambrini and McEwan's Export.
Buckie punters are actually *upmarket* by the standards of your average jaikie on Union Street or the Sautmarket. Before the alcohol pricing controls came in in particular, you could get smashed far more cheaply on other stuff, and I believe the differential is still there even now if not so marked. (Sudden thought: does the origin of Buckie correlate with its sales in Glasgow to different football club supporters? Never heard of such a thing, though.)
Haw! THat's a good one. @Theuniondivvie and @malcolmg will like that. And the best bit is "The drink's UK manufacturers – who previously launched a gin with a similar name – deny targeting any specific demographic."
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I know, vexing isn't it? Wonder whether Kier gets it right?
Professionally I have a new excuse to pass onto a customer as to why their delivery is not coming - your truck was hijacked and torched coming out of the warehouse near Lyon.
Genuinely.
Ah but do you have a re-tweeted video from Leon to prove it?
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
I disagree entirely.
He's a petty wannabe bureaucrat.
I fat finger flagged this post. I believe I have amended. Sorry!
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
Of course, as a good Lib Dem myself, excepting the 2015 GE, the Lib Dems were never NOT the third party.
Their vote share has been third every time except GE2015.
The failures of FPTP.........
"The failures of FPTP". Harsh, but fair (on the Lib Dems)
ETA: Always third on vote share, too? Or would that have been UKIP in 2015, say? E2TA: Ah yes, definitely UKIP in 2015. 12.6% v 7.9% E3TA: And, of course, this point was made in the very post I'm replying to, d'oh!
This post is an exemplar of a lot of science, but reproducibility is important.
I remember being quite excited about something I'd discovered during PhD research, tangential to my research, but I thought great, that's worth an extra paper. Re-doing the literature review while writing up the thesis, I found the original paper describing what I'd 'discovered' First published in 1920s
In my PhD, I designed a brand new methodology to look at something… to discover someone had done it a few years before… to then discover there was a series of about 5 papers in the 1930s and 1940s doing the same, some of which turned out to be difficult to find as importing copies of minor US scientific journals was oddly not prioritised in the early 1940s.
Dowden accused Labour of adding £1000 pa to everyone's mortgage through green energy initiatives. Dowden based his figure on a Daily Mail report, based on a briefing by Jeremy Hunt's SPADS.
Dowden accused Labour of adding £1000 pa to everyone's mortgage through green energy initiatives. Dowden based his figure on a Daily Mail report, based on a briefing by Jeremy Hunt's SPADS.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Dowden accused Labour of adding £1000 pa to everyone's mortgage through green energy initiatives. Dowden based his figure on a Daily Mail report, based on a briefing by Jeremy Hunt's SPADS.
Throw him out!
By-election in Hertsmere?
Unlikely. Anyway the Daily Mail is an unimpeachable resource, so no harm done.
Professionally I have a new excuse to pass onto a customer as to why their delivery is not coming - your truck was hijacked and torched coming out of the warehouse near Lyon.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
Do you haunt other internet discussion sites correcting mistakes? Have you considered a career as a proof reeder?
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
Do you haunt other internet discussion sites correcting mistakes? Have you considered a career as a proof reeder?
It wouldn't suit him, as they're usually paid cash.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
Partisan?
A civil service report?
Are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the civil service?
Certainly not. I have every faith in the ACOBA investigation.
And the Cabinet Office inquiry?
You may have me at an advantage as I did not do my schooling in this country, so didn't formally study the constitution in this country, but last I checked my understanding was that the Cabinet Office is a part of the Civil Service?
So with regards to the Cabinet Office are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the Civil Service?
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
For a moment I thought this was another comment on the Civil Service.
Of course, as a good Lib Dem myself, excepting the 2015 GE, the Lib Dems were never NOT the third party.
Their vote share has been third every time except GE2015.
The failures of FPTP.........
"The failures of FPTP". Harsh, but fair (on the Lib Dems)
ETA: Always third on vote share, too? Or would that have been UKIP in 2015, say? E2TA: Ah yes, definitely UKIP in 2015. 12.6% v 7.9% E3TA: And, of course, this point was made in the very post I'm replying to, d'oh!
This post is an exemplar of a lot of science, but reproducibility is important.
I remember being quite excited about something I'd discovered during PhD research, tangential to my research, but I thought great, that's worth an extra paper. Re-doing the literature review while writing up the thesis, I found the original paper describing what I'd 'discovered' First published in 1920s
In my PhD, I designed a brand new methodology to look at something… to discover someone had done it a few years before… to then discover there was a series of about 5 papers in the 1930s and 1940s doing the same, some of which turned out to be difficult to find as importing copies of minor US scientific journals was oddly not prioritised in the early 1940s.
Do we deduce from this that you are a pair of frauds?
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
Neither. I'm just half asleep at the mome...I mean, not checking autocorrect fails properly.
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Thurrock Council are getting worked up over the fact that some Thurrock residents will have to drive through the neighbouring ULEZ to get to work. To be fair, there must be issues in border areas.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
Mine is more of a political point. Populists such as Johnson have no problem trying to undermine people's confidence in our democratic institutions. She and Starmer must have realised how this would look. Totally stupid by both of them.
This wholly partisan report undermines nothing. If ACPOA had found against her that would be substantially different.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
I disagree entirely.
He's a petty wannabe bureaucrat.
It's just dawned on me, the ACOBA report clearing Gray to work for Starmer has now been superceded by Case's Mickey Mouse inquiry result. Case is rather clever.
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
If you make electric vans that work at least as well as internal combustion engine ones, and are cheaper, then, provided you paint them white, they don't have to care about catastrophic climate change. Job done.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
Pretty tedious joke, surely? I dither about how to spell grey even as an adjective. It seems grey is UK vs gray US.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
Do you haunt other internet discussion sites correcting mistakes? Have you considered a career as a proof reeder?
I think they are already got a full time job as the Cashfinder-General
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
Pretty tedious joke, surely? I dither about how to spell grey even as an adjective. It seems grey is UK vs gray US.
Scots has 'gray' too till some time in the c19 and still so too for surnames, as indeed in Ms Gray's case, and place names.
I see Red Wall tories calling for the halting of visas for social care workers from abroad.
They have no idea of the state of the care system.
If you want to improve the care system, how about paying care staff more than a pittance more than minimum wage?
Care home near me have a big banner outside boasting that they are paying rates of £10.90 per hour in order to attract staff.
That wage should not be high enough to attract visas.
Great.
Tell Hunt to hand over the money then, rather than splathing ever more on the NHS.
Hunt is responsible for Social Care already.
I'm entirely in favour of a market rate being paid to resolve any labour shortages, and if that market rate is above a reasonable threshold then market visas ought to be able to be sort.
Do you agree £10.90 ph is too low a rate to be demanding visas as a solution?
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
Why is it "France doing a poor job" rather than "immigrants to France doing a poor job". That graph is damning to Western immigration policies everywhere. We should not be bringing in people that are poorer than the rest of the population. It just increases the burden on the taxpayer in an age where we cannot afford it.
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
I don't understand what you mean. The figures seem to show Germany having very low child poverty rates. You seem to be saying that the poverty of the former East Germany keeps the native-born poverty figures high. That seems wrong. Have I misunderstood your meaning?
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
Why is it "France doing a poor job" rather than "immigrants to France doing a poor job". That graph is damning to Western immigration policies everywhere. We should not be bringing in people that are poorer than the rest of the population. It just increases the burden on the taxpayer in an age where we cannot afford it.
An interesting point, I'd like to see the EU/Non-EU migrant split for the UK mind.
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
Why is it "France doing a poor job" rather than "immigrants to France doing a poor job". That graph is damning to Western immigration policies everywhere. We should not be bringing in people that are poorer than the rest of the population. It just increases the burden on the taxpayer in an age where we cannot afford it.
You need to be careful here to distinguish between poverty and a burden to the taxpayers. You can be one or the other, both, or neither.
I see Red Wall tories calling for the halting of visas for social care workers from abroad.
They have no idea of the state of the care system.
If you want to improve the care system, how about paying care staff more than a pittance more than minimum wage?
Care home near me have a big banner outside boasting that they are paying rates of £10.90 per hour in order to attract staff.
That wage should not be high enough to attract visas.
Great.
Tell Hunt to hand over the money then, rather than splathing ever more on the NHS.
Hunt is responsible for Social Care already.
I'm entirely in favour of a market rate being paid to resolve any labour shortages, and if that market rate is above a reasonable threshold then market visas ought to be able to be sort.
Do you agree £10.90 ph is too low a rate to be demanding visas as a solution?
It is too low.
But is it low because there is nowhere near enough cash going into the system - certainly for LA funded places?
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Well that's a specific of the general tension which often arises between what people want to do individually and what's best for society. One of the important functions of democratic politics and government is to resolve this tension in a way that fuses personal freedom and collective responsibility, and is informed by evidence and facts. Oh yes.
My reactionary father-in-law was in a lather yesterday but for once he seems to have a point.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
Will change in a few years as all qualifying pharmacists become able to prescribe - they would change that prescription for him. They cannot legally do that at the current time.
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
I don't understand what you mean. The figures seem to show Germany having very low child poverty rates. You seem to be saying that the poverty of the former East Germany keeps the native-born poverty figures high. That seems wrong. Have I misunderstood your meaning?
Yep I take from that chart that Germany has by far the greatest success in reducing poverty rates but also - importantly in the context of this discussion - that they are almost the most successful in dealing with poverty in all their communities reasonably equally, not just in the native born.
I am very surprised by the rates for Spain and Sweden. Especially compared to the US which I had instinctively thought would be the worst.
The UK by comparison does look pretty good, although using Germany as a guide we have a long way to go.
Any odds on some twunks from Just Stop Oil trying to orange centre court? Anyone know what kind of paint they use and if its oil based?
The hypocrisy you're looking for wouldn't be there in any case. If your point is that oil is ruining everything, and you used an oil-based product to ruin something, that's a good way of making your point.
Which isn't to say they'd be doing the right thing, but the palpable desperation of some people to find some superficial hypocrisy ("HE'S GOT AN IPHONE!!!2!!") to avoid engaging in the substance of the issue is... weak.
I don't think it is impossible to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. I harbour a nasty suspicion that many of the just stop oil louts are scientifically illiterate, in it for the attention, and often from wealthy backgrounds. Its like celebs flying in from the US to join marches against climate change.
True. But I also think 'oh they're all just precious rich kids' is often a mental technique people use to mitigate the guilt they might otherwise feel about not caring as much or doing as much about the issue as a big part of them knows they really ought to. Similar to 'they'll just spend it on booze and fags' to justify not giving money to beggars.
BiB
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
Thurrock Council are getting worked up over the fact that some Thurrock residents will have to drive through the neighbouring ULEZ to get to work. To be fair, there must be issues in border areas.
North Ockendon (part of Havering) juts out beyond the M25!
French does a poor job of keeping immigrants out of poverty. UK does pretty well by comparison. Look at Sweden. But also Germany.
Germany's number will be "flattered" by the still large-ish number of people from the former East Germany still living in poverty.
I don't understand what you mean. The figures seem to show Germany having very low child poverty rates. You seem to be saying that the poverty of the former East Germany keeps the native-born poverty figures high. That seems wrong. Have I misunderstood your meaning?
Yep I take from that chart that Germany has by far the greatest success in reducing poverty rates but also - importantly in the context of this discussion - that they are almost the most successful in dealing with poverty in all their communities reasonably equally, not just in the native born.
I am very surprised by the rates for Spain and Sweden. Especially compared to the US which I had instinctively thought would be the worst.
The UK by comparison does look pretty good, although using Germany as a guide we have a long way to go.
Note for the context of the USA it is the children of immigrant households, not of ethnic minority households. There are an awful lot of immigrants to the USA (like @rcs1000 and @Gardenwalker ) who do just fine. And there are a lot of natives who don't.
Sue Gray banged to rights by a Cabinet Office inquiry.
Gove Boris his job back!
This was spectacularly stupid by her and by Starmer. They have essentially undermined the independence of her enquiry. So stupid.
I'm afraid however the Tories spin it that is very much a side issue. Because unless you are saying that the Met were in on this new job of Grey's, her inquiry into Case and Johnson was ultimately not the key point.
As far as Boris is concerned its all history now anyway, since he's history now anyway.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
That fine was nothing to do with Grey's report.
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
G R A Y
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
I wonder whether the people who misspell names like Sue Grey and Kier Starmer do it through ignorance or think they are being funny at the expense of their rivals? (Hint: if it’s the latter, you’re not - just tedious.)
In my case, I get Keir Starmer wrong because there's a large construction firm called 'Kier', which I have known since childhood. Familiarity means I think Kier rather than Keir. I do try to catch it though, and I don't think I've done it in a while.
Comments
Bless them. They should have put "STOP SUE GRAY" on a lectern and claimed it to be one of the people's priorities.
I can see it now. PMQs on Wednesday. The PM criticises the LOTO. Throws in a jibe about Sue Gray. The LOTO stands up and says no rules were broken. "Here's the email from Sue Gray to the Cabinet Secretary. I was copied into it. It's not my fault that he doesn't open or read his emails".
I have a feeling that this will come back to bite the Government on the backside.
...Cabinet Office minister Jeremy Quin said the Whitehall inquiry found the code "was prima facie broken as a result of the undeclared contact between Ms Gray and the Leader of the Opposition."
He said Ms Gray was given the opportunity to make representations but chose not to do so...
Lesson of the day: Don't piss off Simon Case.
16.90 ABV. Coincidentally.
You have come to some tenuous point and are making all kinds of assumptions about who spends the money or who is likely to but your original point that giving a second hand bottle of wine to a school tombola increases GDP is mistaken.
But as far as Sunak is concerned, with the rather odd anyway fine he received, it does politically make it look a bit like fruit of the poisoned tree.
And it was completely unnecessary by Starmer. He's beating Sunak anyway, why make such a silly unforced error?
And it would be stretching it somewhat to say that her impartiality or otherwise undermines any disciplinary offences within the CS itself. Not that any of them appear to have been disciplined in any meaningful way.
I said that giving money to the school to spend (C) in exchange for a donated bottle of wine does, since the school will spend the money and that is C, and C feeds into Y.
You are making all sorts of tenuous assumptions that the C the school will do, the reason its fundraising, would have been made anyway by others but that is unknown and unknowable. All that is known is the school will spend the money, and that will contribute to C and that will feed to Y. That is the economics of it.
Genuinely.
Buckfast need to bring out a 19.16 super strength brew.
Isn’t this An Attack On Our Democracy which requires a cremation without the option of a fine? Or is it Free Speech?
Sorry, lost my chest sheet for this.
You said: "Giving them money they can then spend (C) without buying a bottle of imported wine (M) boosts Y."
You said the very act of giving the bottle of wine to the school (avoiding the need to buy an imported bottle, as if this was relevant to the price of eggs) would increase GDP. It won't, necessarily. If the school spends it and you hadn't planned to then it would. If the school saves it then it wouldn't.
Just like if someone hadn't given them the bottle or you hadn't bought it. The donor hasn't increased GDP by giving them the bottle of wine because it is an existing asset. So when someone buys it they are just exchanging one asset (a good) for another (money). With no implications for GDP without knowing the school's or your spending and saving intentions.
Case does appear to be a petty bureaucrat.
Just watch that Tory poll deficit disappear. People don't care about being able to pay their mortgage, that their community is scruffy and decayed, that half the services they need are still on strike. No, what they really want to do is expose the Massive Scandal that is the Labour Party hiring Sue Gray.
Words you quoted which I actually said: Giving them money they can then spend ...
Do you see the difference?
Incidentally many businesses make their living by buying commodities from a supplier then selling them to a consumer. Eg almost every shop in the country.
Homo Oblivious
by Victoria Amelina
https://www.arrowsmithpress.com/homo-oblivious
A civil service report?
Are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the civil service?
The oil in his manner might cause an uncontrolled conflagration.
- Leon broadcasts some shit some random posted on Twitter (here I was particularly sceptical* of the 'snipers' one)
- Leon later upbraids you for defending mainstream media
- I post the BBC article which has the questionable Tweet reported by Leon among its examples of misinformation
So no, it was before he was upbraiding you, I think.Still delicious and entirely predictable.
* 1 'sniper' not snipers. No sign of any riot. As I posted, could be anyone, anywhere at any time (turns out to have been posted originally over a year ago)
He's a petty wannabe bureaucrat.
Those commodities have likely had value added. Exchange of existing assets is GDP neutral.
G – R – A – Y
FFS.
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/northern-ireland/king-billy-buckfast-rival-ordered-to-change-branding-over-sectarian-concerns/482668890.html
Wrist smack from Portman Group (i assume booze industry voluntary regulator)
Dowden accused Labour of adding £1000 pa to everyone's mortgage through green energy initiatives. Dowden based his figure on a Daily Mail report, based on a briefing by Jeremy Hunt's SPADS.
Throw him out!
I blame autocorrect.
What are we to do when the lumpen proletariat doesn't give a flying fuck about the imminent catastrophic climate change and just want to drive their white van to work?
unimpeachable resource, so no harm done.
I teared up reading this story about identifying three children in a photo showing them fleeing Nazi Germany.
"I teared up..." absolutely no.
You may have me at an advantage as I did not do my schooling in this country, so didn't formally study the constitution in this country, but last I checked my understanding was that the Cabinet Office is a part of the Civil Service?
So with regards to the Cabinet Office are you *gasp* questioning the independence and integrity of the Civil Service?
They have no idea of the state of the care system.
Care home near me have a big banner outside boasting that they are paying rates of £10.90 per hour in order to attract staff.
That wage should not be high enough to attract visas.
*Edit: for over-22s.
Not even 50p over minimum wage and that's a high rate that migrants are needed for if vacancies aren't filled? 🤔
Tell Hunt to hand over the money then, rather than splathing ever more on the NHS.
I assume they are going to use their powers to apply multi mullion pound fines against them
Asda apparently have been fined just £60,000
https://news.sky.com/story/drivers-paying-more-for-fuel-due-to-weakening-competition-between-retailers-regulator-says-12913866
I'm entirely in favour of a market rate being paid to resolve any labour shortages, and if that market rate is above a reasonable threshold then market visas ought to be able to be sort.
Do you agree £10.90 ph is too low a rate to be demanding visas as a solution?
And it’s not just petrol retailers.
He's been on 20mg statins for over ten years and went to collect his repeat prescription at the usual chemist to be told that there is a national shortage of 20mg statin tablets. The chemist said they had tried to source in multiple places but none can be found. The answer, he said, is simple enough - have two 10mg tablets instead, there are plenty of those available.
But - guess what - the chemist refused to dispense as the repeat prescription states 20mg tablet rather than 2x 10mg tablets and sent father-in-law back to his GP for a new prescription (this was Saturday and surgery was closed and he had almost run out of tablets).
Good use of GP time there then.
But is it low because there is nowhere near enough cash going into the system - certainly for LA funded places?
I am very surprised by the rates for Spain and Sweden. Especially compared to the US which I had instinctively thought would be the worst.
The UK by comparison does look pretty good, although using Germany as a guide we have a long way to go.