On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
I think you’re confused about the actual process here: the carbon doesn’t go into the crops, it reacts with the rock itself to form carbonates of various kinds.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
"Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you."
And Sunak has given up trying. Because he doesn't care about the environment himself, he'd rather take the soft option and follow the agenda of the Mail and Express.
This isn't leadership. Get rid.
Sunak is challenging the climate change process and in fact is brave and correct
Of course he has come under fierce attack, but as is being seen on this forum he is receiving support for his actions
No. Sunak is being completely disingenuous. Claiming that 2050 Net Zero can still be achieved without taking the steps required to get there is just taking the people for fools.
Clearly an attempt to have cake and eat it. He deserves all he gets for this nonsense.
There are multiple sets of steps you can take to get to the same destination.
If petrol cars get outlawed in 2035 then by 2050 they'll be at least 16 years old and a tiny proportion of vehicles on the road.
The problem with extremists is the fallacy of "something must be done, this is something, so this must be done."
Nonsense.
If, say, we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big bang transition to Net Zero then:
1) the UK economy is left for dead as the US/China plough on with a cheap, green energy economy
2) or, if everyone else follows our example, the planet is screwed.
Who said that we pump out maximum emissions until 2049 then make a big transition in 2050? Certainly not me.
The transition is happening either way, and before 2050, if its in 2030 or 2035, its just a question of getting the ducks in a row.
As for (2) as I've said before, everyone else will do what's in their own best interests, they won't "follow our example". If we cut off our nose to spite our face, taking harmful actions like cutting driving or flying rather than investing in clean technologies then they'll just carry on merrily along doing their own thing and ignore us.
If we want them to follow us, we need a sensible example to follow where we improve our living standards, not harm them, with cleaner technologies. That way we get to have our cake and eat it (which is the entire purpose of having a cake in my eyes) and they will follow us.
Despite your scornful response about it, a great deal of carbon can be sequestered by dressing agricultural fields with rock dust - as Sheffield University says, up to 40% of our Net Zero requirements, which is huge. It's huge if it's only half that.
I was already very keen on this idea anyway, to remineralise agricultural soils, resulting in healthier produce and improved yields, but for it to also help us massively on the way to Net Zero is a massive win.
'Produce' implies arable fields. So what happens at harvest? Even if one is direct drilling, the previous crop is eliminated one way or another. And if there is some increase in bound carbon (as in species-rich permanent grasslands) this is only a one off.
What am I missing
It seems you plough the rock dust into the soil, or spread it on top & plant crops as normal. Yields should be the same, or better in some cases as you can choose to apply the ground up silicates only to those fields where increasing the pH will be a net benefit (as is already done by spreading ground up limestone in some areas).
Sure, but you remove the carbon and rot, burn, belch, fart it back into the atmosphere. You're not making a coal seam de nos jours to sequester the carbon from the atmosphere, on the whole.
(Though anything to economise on fuel and oil-derved fertiliser is good, too, in that aim.)
Activated charcoal is the most promising sequestration option, or “biochar” as it’s termed. There you really are locking away carbon in a process that partially mimics the creation of coal seams, and it works even if the ground is ploughed.
Thanks! But in both cases it's still only a one off. Not an ongoing process for decades? Still, useful.
With charcoal you can in theory keep adding it annually, at least until the soil gets too saturated with the stuff. But like all of these things it's not an alternative to stopping burning fossil fuels.
Why shouldn't it be? Is the aim of the exercise to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, or to make life as unpleasant and Orwellian as possible for people?
Quite the opposite.
To be net zero you need some things on the negative side, then some on the positive side, and they balance. You have to think though what are your priorities and have those priorities as your limited positives.
Burning fossil fuels when there's better and ultimately cheaper alternatives around is pointless. No reason to do it.
But some emissions have no better alternative.
EG a large source of emissions come from things like cow farts. I still want to eat beef and drink real milk, so I would like my positives to be going into things like that, balanced by any negatives.
Better than a future where we burn emissions, but all need vegan meals and soy lattes as the cows have been culled.
It’s even worse. Your final option won’t ever even be on the table. As a country we’re never going to abandon beef and milk, so we either trim emissions cleverly or countries at risk from climate change are *******. There is no version in which we democratically consent to give up life’s pleasures. Should anyone try, they will get voted out.
So we tax those products and use it partly to pay for Green Reparations.
Green Party Policy is Climate Reparations of £50Bn a year, which will probably be "managed" by various gravy train riding Charities and NGO's who are enthusiastic about out.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
Are you sure ?
You need to compare post tax salary post-rise to post tax salary pre-rise.
Just put it into a calculator to test the numbers. Used Plan 2 for Student Loan.
Year 1 Pre-tax £30k Take home £24,179
Year 2 Pre-tax £32,340 Take home £25,560
Difference = 5.7% which is below inflation. Fiscal drag means a real terms pay cut.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
Supermarket discount schemes have become the “real price”. You can’t not join them if you’re on any kind of budget. Tesco especially - the clubcard price is the one that’s competitive with other retailers.
Yep, Tesco. Find yourself in there without your clubcard and you know how it feels to be in Dantes circle of hell.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
You're not wrong, but we need a different metric to take account of all this. Otherwise we just end up in silly semantics arguments.
The metric would need to aggregate lots of stuff - Scottish v English, student debt v no student debt, UC recipient, number of kids and so on.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?
The past is another country. Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was 13 and a widow when Henry was born. Romeo would be in prison. Juliet (13,nearly 14) would be in the care of social services.
In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)
What has happened over the past decade is an increase in state involvement in sexual encounters and personal relationships in general, in response to popular demand, but with all sorts of perverse consequences. I would suspect that some way along the line the kids rebel against it in a big way.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
You're not wrong, but we need a different metric to the account of all this. Otherwise we just end up in silly semantics arguments.
The metric would need to aggregate lots of stuff - Scottish v English, student debt v no student debt, UC recipient, number of kids and so on.
Or the Government could end fiscal drag and then we would have real terms pay growth.
Either way for many people fiscal drag absolutely means even if they have an above inflation pay-rise, they're still worse off. And that's an entirely political choice by the Government, not the markets or inflation.
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
What I do believe is being discussed is tightening up safeguards regarding relationships people have with children.
There's a myth by some that the unrestricted age of consent in this country is 16, its not, its 18 already.
Relations with a 16 year old may be legal, or may be illegal, depending upon the circumstances. Some people are suggesting those circumstances be adjusted to include a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, which is not unusual abroad.
Will Romeo and Juliet survive the Online Harms bill ?
The past is another country. Henry VII's mother Margaret Beaufort was 13 and a widow when Henry was born. Romeo would be in prison. Juliet (13,nearly 14) would be in the care of social services.
In strict law two 15 year olds heavily snogging are committing an offence. (In general it is not regarded as an offence, but anyone who thinks such activity is generally 'not sexual' in nature is delusional.)
What has happened over the past decade is an increase in state involvement in sexual encounters and personal relationships in general, in response to popular demand, but with all sorts of perverse consequences. I would suspect that some way along the line the kids rebel against it in a big way.
Is there not already quite the increase in teenage celibacy?
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.
I shall probably be banned from the PB wanky epicurean club, but Lidl do have loyalty card nonsense, Lidl Plus. I’ll be claiming my free loaf this afternoon.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.
Maybe, I think they should just use the point of sale data and base it from real checkout prices for items rather than sticker prices and shopper frequency surveys.
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
You're not wrong, but we need a different metric to the account of all this. Otherwise we just end up in silly semantics arguments.
The metric would need to aggregate lots of stuff - Scottish v English, student debt v no student debt, UC recipient, number of kids and so on.
Or the Government could end fiscal drag and then we would have real terms pay growth.
Either way for many people fiscal drag absolutely means even if they have an above inflation pay-rise, they're still worse off. And that's an entirely political choice by the Government, not the markets or inflation.
True, though as long as governments are punished for honest spending cuts or honest tax rises, we get what we deserve.
But all this, and the Clubcard Prices thing, is second order to the key thing. If your mortgage hasn't gone up recently, life's not too bad. If you've moved from an old fixed rate to a new one, it's horrible. And that process has a while to go yet.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
"TikTok is driving online frenzies that encourage anti-social behaviour in the real world, a BBC Three investigation reveals.
Ex-employees say the issue is not being tackled for fear of slowing the growth of the social media app's business.
These frenzies - where TikTok drives disproportionate amounts of engagement to some topics - are evidenced by interviews with former staffers, app users and BBC analysis of wider social media data. They have then led to disruption and disorder in everyday life."
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
It definitely doesn't because people's net salary will still go up, just not as fast as that difference would imply. For someone on the basic rate they'd take about 70% of that and on the higher rate about 60% of it depending on their personal circumstances. Fiscal drag won't push anyone back into real terms pay losses, they just wouldn't see 100% of the rise.
Lets take a graduate on £30k, they have a real tax rate of 41%. A 7.8% pay rise is a pay rise of £2,340 - of which £959.40 would go to the Exchequer and they'll keep only £1380.6
That's a real terms pay cut.
You're not wrong, but we need a different metric to the account of all this. Otherwise we just end up in silly semantics arguments.
The metric would need to aggregate lots of stuff - Scottish v English, student debt v no student debt, UC recipient, number of kids and so on.
Or the Government could end fiscal drag and then we would have real terms pay growth.
Either way for many people fiscal drag absolutely means even if they have an above inflation pay-rise, they're still worse off. And that's an entirely political choice by the Government, not the markets or inflation.
But, as you correctly point out, it's not just the tax bands, rates and thresholds that are important for how nominal earnings and inflation influence take-home pay.
I've done modelling of this using the Scottish Household Survey and it's tricky to communicate the findings given there are so many edge cases and perverse outcomes. And that's before you discuss before/after housing costs, transport...
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
That guy is a bit of a dick. He’s an ex travel journalist, so he’s already been everywhere. Giving up further long haul travel isn’t so hard, in that context
Also, he then boasts about having no kids. Not exactly doing his but for the future of humanity, then
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
"TikTok is driving online frenzies that encourage anti-social behaviour in the real world, a BBC Three investigation reveals.
Ex-employees say the issue is not being tackled for fear of slowing the growth of the social media app's business.
These frenzies - where TikTok drives disproportionate amounts of engagement to some topics - are evidenced by interviews with former staffers, app users and BBC analysis of wider social media data. They have then led to disruption and disorder in everyday life."
Not just graduates who are worse off due to fiscal drag either.
Take someone on a bit above minimum wage, £20k
£20k gross £17,662 take home pay
After 7.8% pay rise
£21,560 gross £18,683 take home pay
Difference is 5.8% which is less than inflation, so a real terms pay cut.
Fiscal drag means real wages are still falling for many. If you're well off so don't care about the tax free allowance, then it won't affect you, but for others it does.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.
I shall probably be banned from the PB wanky epicurean club, but Lidl do have loyalty card nonsense, Lidl Plus. I’ll be claiming my free loaf this afternoon.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
I must admit I quite like these, but then I am a philistine.
"TikTok is driving online frenzies that encourage anti-social behaviour in the real world, a BBC Three investigation reveals.
Ex-employees say the issue is not being tackled for fear of slowing the growth of the social media app's business.
These frenzies - where TikTok drives disproportionate amounts of engagement to some topics - are evidenced by interviews with former staffers, app users and BBC analysis of wider social media data. They have then led to disruption and disorder in everyday life."
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
This is a lovely video of a group of mountain bikers coming across King Charles near Balmoral. He seems to genuinely be a very nice man interested in what others are doing.
I've been up there a few times, had a night at the bothy. Never come across a royal but the police keep a friendly eye on you if you pass close to the castle when someone is in.
I think I've probably cycled on (or xc skied) most of the hill tracks on the estate but mostly during winter when I don't think anyone goes much. Last time I cycled past Birkhall they were having a run of river hydro scheme put in and I was amused to see warning tape around all the ant hills (although they are a protected species I think).
There's quite a few tales of hillwalking encounters with the late Queen and the King as I'm sure you know. I imagine that's when they got/get to play at not having the burden of royalty and just enjoy a walk like everyone else, even if everyone else doesn't actually own the estate. Surprised the bikers filmed it though - I think I'd have turned the camera off.
There's a bench overlooking the loch near the other bothy at Glas Allt Shiel and I always used to wonder whether it was anyone's favourite view.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
They should probably just base the ONS figures off Aldi and Lidl tbh - two shops that don't bother with loyalty card nonsense and I reckon are generally closish to the true 'fair price'.
I shall probably be banned from the PB wanky epicurean club, but Lidl do have loyalty card nonsense, Lidl Plus. I’ll be claiming my free loaf this afternoon.
I thought there was no such thing as a free loaf.
Very true, I had to buy a welding mask, some radiator paint and an inflatable canoe to ‘accumulate’ a loaf.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Yes. Let's face it, even without a loyalty card, the supermarket can record and correlate all the items in my shopping trolley, and even tie them to me by my credit card. If I pay cash, their computer, when it's not off painting the Sistine Chapel, can probably take a fair guess that it is always the same person who buys this particular combination on a Tuesday morning. The only data a loyalty card adds are my name and address.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Try reading what I wrote again, then engaging your critical thinking and reading comprehension before responding next time.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
The age of consent in the UK is 16 isn't it? Or has that changed?
Unrestricted? No, its absolutely not.
The unrestricted age of consent in the UK is 18.
If you're in a position of authority over an 18 year old and sleep with them, you can get fired for breaking your employers policies. If you're in a position of authority over a 16/17 year old and sleep with them, you can go to jail, as they're below the age of consent then.
Changing 'position of authority' to include anyone older than 50% + 7 wouldn't change the age of consent, just the regulations around what is already restricted.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Try reading what I wrote again, then engaging your critical thinking and reading comprehension before responding next time.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
The age of consent in the UK is 16 isn't it? Or has that changed?
You can’t have sex with someone for whom you are in loco parentis until they are over 17, and you have to be over 18 to distribute a sexual image of yourself or someone else, even if you are in a relationship and texting each other.
Sensible stuff but it all needs clearing up. For yonks I have thought a 30 year old having sex with a 17 year old was a wrongun, while we obviously don’t care if two consenting 15 year olds have sex with each other, or even 15 year olds with 17 year olds for example.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
Duchamp was there already with his readymades over a century ago -- it's art if an artist calls it art and puts it in an art gallery...
(I was listening to Grayson Perry's 2013 Reith lectures recently, as part of my ongoing "listen to the whole Reith archive" project -- one of his lectures was on the whole "what is art?" question.)
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Yes. Let's face it, even without a loyalty card, the supermarket can record and correlate all the items in my shopping trolley, and even tie them to me by my credit card. If I pay cash, their computer, when it's not off painting the Sistine Chapel, can probably take a fair guess that it is always the same person who buys this particular combination on a Tuesday morning. The only data a loyalty card adds are my name and address.
I miss being shamed by the specific Tesco vouchers in the post that revealed they knew I mostly bought bacon, beer, butter and bread at the min-Tesco on the way home from the pub.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Try reading what I wrote again, then engaging your critical thinking and reading comprehension before responding next time.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
We could always raise the age of majority to 21 once again, for everything, including voting.
There are four drivers for raising the age of consent. One is Brand-type shenanigans. Two is the surprisingly common view that women cannot enjoy sex so must have been coerced. Three is the increased infantilisation of young adults now the school-leaving age has gone from 15 or 16 to 21 for anyone with a room temperature IQ. Four is concern about forced marriages in some communities.
The school leaving age has a hidden significance, hidden partly by loosely throwing the p-word around. It is not about leaving school but starting work and having an independent income. Those without are susceptible to the charms of anyone with a car who will stand them a bag of chips and an alcopop. See Rotherham for instance. That is also why children in care are especially vulnerable: they cannot ask mum for extra money to go out on a Friday night. Again, see Rotherham.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Try reading what I wrote again, then engaging your critical thinking and reading comprehension before responding next time.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
The age of consent in the UK is 16 isn't it? Or has that changed?
Unrestricted? No, its absolutely not.
The unrestricted age of consent in the UK is 18.
If you're in a position of authority over an 18 year old and sleep with them, you can get fired for breaking your employers policies. If you're in a position of authority over a 16/17 year old and sleep with them, you can go to jail, as they're below the age of consent then.
Changing 'position of authority' to include anyone older than 50% + 7 wouldn't change the age of consent, just the regulations around what is already restricted.
So if person X is 16 and person Y is 18 should they legally be able to have sex, assuming Y isn't in a position of authority over X as currently stated by the law? That's what I'm trying to establish.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Try reading what I wrote again, then engaging your critical thinking and reading comprehension before responding next time.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
The age of consent in the UK is 16 isn't it? Or has that changed?
Unrestricted? No, its absolutely not.
The unrestricted age of consent in the UK is 18.
If you're in a position of authority over an 18 year old and sleep with them, you can get fired for breaking your employers policies. If you're in a position of authority over a 16/17 year old and sleep with them, you can go to jail, as they're below the age of consent then.
Changing 'position of authority' to include anyone older than 50% + 7 wouldn't change the age of consent, just the regulations around what is already restricted.
So if person X is 16 and person Y is 18 should they legally be able to have sex, assuming Y isn't in a position of authority over X as currently stated by the law? That's what I'm trying to establish.
Currently? Yes.
And if we had the suggested "Romeo and Juliet" style law [which exists in many jurisprudences already around the globe]? Yes, that would still be legal.
16 and 30 would be illegal though under a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, just as 16 and 'authority' is already illegal.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
AI art does not have to set the heather alight. AI art is not competing with Turner and Constable but with the independent artists selling their daubs for £200 on Etsy.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
Bespoke handturned pottery out of Cornwall or the Cotswolds still exists and has a market despite it being a lot cheaper from China. I suspect 'real art' will survive fairly easily. It was already rendered obsolete as a way of portraying reality over 100 years ago.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
I hope that doesn't mean it is going to get frustrated and start a war instead...
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
Duchamp was there already with his readymades over a century ago -- it's art if an artist calls it art and puts it in an art gallery...
(I was listening to Grayson Perry's 2013 Reith lectures recently, as part of my ongoing "listen to the whole Reith archive" project -- one of his lectures was on the whole "what is art?" question.)
Yes the readymades were a thing in itself which the audience was invited to consider as art. My point was that action painting involved setting up initial conditions (a paint can suspended from the ceiling by a piece of string, say) and then letting the art develop, hence I thought that was a better comparison with AI.
Grayson Perry is great and his Reith Lectures fantastic.
In particular I loved (and use) his piece about photographs. Are they art? General rules: if they are large, they might be; if they are black and white, they could be; if anyone in them is smiling at the camera, they absolutely are not.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
Duchamp was there already with his readymades over a century ago -- it's art if an artist calls it art and puts it in an art gallery...
(I was listening to Grayson Perry's 2013 Reith lectures recently, as part of my ongoing "listen to the whole Reith archive" project -- one of his lectures was on the whole "what is art?" question.)
Art is what Charles Saatchi collected 20-30 years ago. That's why Damian Hirst is an artist and not a graphic designer who got lucky. There's a fine line between spot paintings and wrapping paper.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Sunak is still committed to the 2050 target.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
A delicious Churchill anecdote one hopes is not apocryphal:
Clement Attlee was once standing over the urinal as Churchill entered on the same mission. Observing Attlee, Churchill stood as far away as possible. Attlee: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” WSC: “That’s right. Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it.” https://x.com/LeescoLee3/status/1704800957161205870?s=20
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Sunak is still committed to the 2050 target.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
I could cite elements of the rest of the manifesto and indeed the 2017 manifesto which had a load of green crap that Sunak said had no mandate.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
What utter bollocks
Bring your critical faculties to the party. It really is not that good.
I’m saying you’re talking bollocks coz you’re completely missing the point. I’m not claiming the PORNHUB image is a masterpiece, I’m saying it’s funny and quite clever and - most importantly - a computer produced it in 3 seconds
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Art is of course not done. There will be another category, perhaps even an -ism, which takes its place alongside all the other genres.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
Duchamp was there already with his readymades over a century ago -- it's art if an artist calls it art and puts it in an art gallery...
(I was listening to Grayson Perry's 2013 Reith lectures recently, as part of my ongoing "listen to the whole Reith archive" project -- one of his lectures was on the whole "what is art?" question.)
Art is what Charles Saatchi collected 20-30 years ago. That's why Damian Hirst is an artist and not a graphic designer who got lucky. There's a fine line between spot paintings and wrapping paper.
Art is of course whatever someone says it is. The genius of the Saatchi/Goldsmiths phenomenon was it was driven by someone who knew a bit about commercialisation (which most artists studiously don't, or refuse to understand); and was also an outlet for the increasingly loada loadsamoney sloshing around at the time. And finally, it got the glam factor, again Saatchi-driven.
It got to the point whereby the Serpentine Summer Show rivalled Glasto as the social event of the summer.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
Don’t admit you shop at Waitrose! You’ll never get a pay rise now.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults. They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
I first became aware of this phenomenon when @Richard_Tyndall alluded to it in an article on PB. It used to be that the AOC in England and Wales was 16. But recent changes about who cant (eg teachers) and associated actions (eg marriage) have blurred the picture and now unrestrictedly it's 18. This leads to anomalies: the 16-year-old father of a girl who gave birth at age 16+10months would not be prosecuted for statutory rape (or its English equivalent) but could not marry her for another year and a bit. The legal position of a man who had sex with a seventeen year old abroad is now also dubious.
This is to mind unsatisfactory, bringing in confusion where there should be none. Pick an age: 16, 18, 99, whatever. Before, illegal. After, legal. Simple. Blurring the lines is a recipe for disaster.
[Incidentally this is another example of pensionerism, where older boomers impose more and more on their law-abiding adult offspring for reasons the boomers find good]
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Sunak is still committed to the 2050 target.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
I could cite elements of the rest of the manifesto and indeed the 2017 manifesto which had a load of green crap that Sunak said had no mandate.
I don’t want to disillusion you all but, is it possible that not all modern political manifestos will be implemented in full?
Former Kremlin lobbyist picked as UK Conservative candidate
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I remember The History Boys, where the pederast Hector is very much the hero.
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Sunak is still committed to the 2050 target.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
I could cite elements of the rest of the manifesto and indeed the 2017 manifesto which had a load of green crap that Sunak said had no mandate.
I don’t want to disillusion you all but, is it possible that not all modern political manifestos will be implemented in full?
Oh I know that, Rishi was talking shite yesterday when he said there was never any mandate for this.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
"I’ve taken one flight in ten years, and my life is richer for it Restrictions on aviation constitute wise stewardship of our shared planet, not an attempt, as some believe, to exert control Paul Miles"
This article implies that the only reason people fly is to go on holiday. But many more do so as a consequence of global migration, dual national/dual resident families etc and travelling to and from work. I don't think restrictions would be wise, they would be based on the false assumption that people fly by choice rather than economic or personal necessity. Plus there is no way other countries in the developing would would follow us ,they would probably just laugh at us.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
This might be a well intentioned idea but is totally impractical . Either raise the age of consent and be clear about it or leave it alone.
And consider fully the consequence of your actions on randy, consenting, 15-18 year olds who won’t give a toss what the law says until they get pulled up on something.
I've realised after this morning's round of news that the substance of what happened yesterday really doesn't matter. What Labour says doesn't matter. Even what the journalists say doesn't matter particularly. The mood music is everything.
Sunak made all sorts of reassuring noises about net zero in the speech and presented the changes as a sensible recalibration of policy. But as far as everyone is concerned the Tories are now anti-net zero and probably climate sceptics. This will win them some rightwing and RefUK support and put off others.
Labour was careful not to come out with anything too eco yesterday, but of course various others of a centre or left persuasion did. So as far as everyone is concerned Labour is pro-net zero and pro-banning you from driving or having a gas boiler after 2030. That might help get the vote out and win back some greens, but will put off others.
Reminds me of the Brexit debates when everything the government did was far right fascism and anyone who proposed single market or customs union was a saboteur of the will of the people.
Doesn't seem t ohave coordinated it too well with KCIII, though.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (especially helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
Another point on the inflation figures and why the BoE may have paused today is that ONS food price inflation as measured by basket value is about 2% higher than the real food inflation rate as measured by checkout values of baskets which include discounts at the till.
So prices aren't going up as fast, but there's fewer/inferior discounts available?
Nah other way around, sticker prices are still rising at about 13% but till based discounts bring that rate down to about 10-11%. The ONS doesn't take till discounts into account for food price inflation, but I'd be surprised if the BoE didn't. The raw food price inflation figure is actually something like 8% based on PoS data but that includes people switching to lesser brands and own brand products as well as till level discounts. The ONS measure of food price inflation doesn't really reflect reality, it's another one of those metrics that they're just way out of date on measuring, private indices do a better job.
The ONS captures people switching brands and retailers but it ignores discounts that aren't available to all shoppers, which doesn't seem wholly unreasonable.
The discounts are available to all shoppers, some decline to use them by not having a clubcard or nectar card. The ONS methodology is outdated, they could easily model the proportion of shoppers who checkout with loyalty discounts and add that in. I expect they will need to do that soon.
The fact that the supermarkets will pay you for your data by means of a discount, should be ignored in the base price of the product mix for the purpose of calculating inflation.
The new aggressive supermarket loyalty card discounts are not about gathering data. They already have that. I think they really are now doing what it says on the tin and discounting to increase loyalty. Tesco Clubcard price = £2; normal price £3. Sainsbury's price also £3 unless you have their loyalty card as well, which most shoppers probably do not, so stay at Tesco for £10 or £20 off your weekly shop, and mutatis mutandis for Sainsbury's Nectar card shoppers.
So now it’s as much about the aggressive creation of vendor lock-in, as the aggressive collection of data?
Though as these cards are electronic, I have Sainbury, Tesco, Waitrose, Co-op all on my phone, and could have more if I were bothered, so it is easy to be in multiple schemes.
Don’t admit you shop at Waitrose! You’ll never get a pay rise now.
Worse still! The one in Oadby closed, as did the old one in Leicester so I have to go to Market Harborough for the sweet potato falafel that can only be had there...
Former Kremlin lobbyist picked as UK Conservative candidate
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
A delicious Churchill anecdote one hopes is not apocryphal:
Clement Attlee was once standing over the urinal as Churchill entered on the same mission. Observing Attlee, Churchill stood as far away as possible. Attlee: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?” WSC: “That’s right. Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it.” https://x.com/LeescoLee3/status/1704800957161205870?s=20
Heard that when I was at school long ago, though the politician telling it said Churchill's interlocutor was Herbert Morrison
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (except helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
It’s Government policy purely as a trap for the Opposition at the next election isn’t it? Pure George Osborne.
Not subtle though, is it? It does not look like natural lighting, which makes you aware you are looking for something.
A human artist would be far more subtle. And thereby making it far more rewarding.
It also looks like a copy of the wedding scene in Shrek 1. As for the wording who is this aimed at? 14 year olds I assume. Or those with the minds of 14 year olds......
On topic, Sunak is right. There has been a huge amount of cakeism from previous governments, basking in the approval of environmental campaigners for introducing the targets, while failing to have an honest conversation about costs - and because Labour, the Lib Dems and Greens, and indeed the core broadcast media, are signed up to the same agenda, then they're happy for the Tories to be blamed for the costs as they come in as the party in office.
Consequently, the only political opposition comes from right-wing Tories, Reform UK, the Mail and Telegraph. It's like Brexit all over again - and we know how that ended.
Brexit was ultimately a consequence of a failure to advocate the benefits of the policy. It's easy to see now the net costs but without explaining the many little benefits, that ground was ceded by default to the opponents who could highlight the irritants and costs involved. Proponents were quiet while opponents were loud (with the exception of Remainy true believers, who by taking their case too far, also turned the public off). And that's where we are with Net Zero and climate change policy.
Unless the policy is advocated from first principles, not just on 'save the planet' grounds, which some will see as hopelessly beyond Britain's scope and others will see and virtue-signalling guff or simply fraudulent, but on grounds of national security and economic benefit, there is every chance there will be a populist backlash against a policy seen as imposed by an elite conspiracy without a popular mandate - because there will be enough truth in the case to credibly make it, especially if the other side is out-of-practice in its media skills in countering those claims.
Put simply, in a democracy, you have to take the people with you.
It's not a great sign that the TV media coverage today is full of environmentalists and political opponents of the Tories whining about how awful the Tories are, rather than making the positive case for action (which it's worth noting the Tories are still signed up to, even if in a kick-the-can mode).
But there is a mandate, here's the front page of the Tory manifesto from 2019.
Sunak is still committed to the 2050 target.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
Johnson said he was going to 'fix' social care 'once and for all'. He didn't.
AI is about as good at art as Adolf Hitler was. That is, pretty competent, capable of churning out works rapidly, but not going to set the heather alight.
it’s funny, but I don’t remember Hitler creating beautiful, immaculate videos of Mongolian soldiers advancing on imperial China and doing this entirely with electronics and code and involving no real humans whatsoever?
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (except helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
It’s Government policy purely as a trap for the Opposition at the next election isn’t it? Pure George Osborne.
Yuck.
What's the trap?
We're going to have to switch to electric eventually, and it will be more affordable eventually, but currently its not quite there yet.
You can get a petrol vehicle like a Picanto for £13k new, whereas the cheapest comparable new BEV is £27k.
Lets say in 6 years time the BEV comes down to £21k in real terms, whereas the Picanto is still £13k, should the Picanto seriously be outlawed?
When BEVs can crossover to be the same price as ICEs are, then ICE will be well and truly dead and buried, but we're not there yet.
Remember the crime drama Broadchurch from 2013? In it there was an elderly character who'd previously married a women several years his junior, and he was portrayed as a heroic victim of prurient media harassment. Now there is talk of those sort of relationships to be criminalized (even if both parties are above the age of consent). I'm not saying if that approach is right or wrong, but it's amazing how quickly the received opinion can change.
I don't believe anyone is suggesting criminalising adult relationships based on age differential.
One of Russell Brand's accusers is suggesting just that:
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
Set the age of consent at 18, but with exemptions for those within a comparable age range.
Many countries and most states in America already do this.
The highest age/age age of consent by states are 16 in Delaware, Kentucky, Utah and unfortunately for Randy Andy... Florida. Washington is interesting - the unrestricted age of consent there is... 21.
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (except helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
It’s Government policy purely as a trap for the Opposition at the next election isn’t it? Pure George Osborne.
Yuck.
The most political Chancellor ever. Least Gordon occasionally thought about the economy.
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their, boilers and has removed the tax on meat, aircraft taxes and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
This isn’t helped by the media often misrepresenting the policy. As you said some think their cars will be taken away. I fully expect the Tories polling to improve . Most of the public don’t do detail and will swallow sound bites.
With interest rates held and Sunaks man of the people impression I think this will be the week that the election became much more competitive.
Labour need to start putting out their own sound bites full of lies like the Tories and stop thinking most of the public could tie their own shoe laces .
Forums like this are not indicative of the public at large . We’re political junkies and even though there’s many disagreements I’m confident members can tie their own shoe laces !
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (except helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
It’s Government policy purely as a trap for the Opposition at the next election isn’t it? Pure George Osborne.
Yuck.
The most political Chancellor ever. Least Gordon occasionally thought about the economy.
The country would have been much better off if he'd never thought about it and focused the whole time on his desire to be PM.
So do I have this right... India maybe assassinated a Canadian citizen in Canada? This is pretty bad stuff. We rightly condemned Putin for doing similar. Is Modi a bit out of control?
Former Kremlin lobbyist picked as UK Conservative candidate
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
Former Kremlin lobbyist picked as UK Conservative candidate
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
Comments
If there is the will in political circles it will happen.
So a human might be able to sweat and paint away and produce something much more “subtle” after two weeks, but why bother when the machine can do it to an acceptable level instantaneously for twopence
AI art is coming for human art on all levels. Quick cheap amusing graphic images, as here, technical drawing to great precision, anime art of high skill, original Escher-like images with spiral villages, QR codes turned into lovely images and videos, dead Hollywood actors reborn and given fake voices to speak words written by GPT6…
On and on and on. Art is done. Hence the strike
Year 1
Pre-tax £30k
Take home £24,179
Year 2
Pre-tax £32,340
Take home £25,560
Difference = 5.7% which is below inflation. Fiscal drag means a real terms pay cut.
I did actually say that was my last AI image. The only one since was Escher. Human
The metric would need to aggregate lots of stuff - Scottish v English, student debt v no student debt, UC recipient, number of kids and so on.
Either way for many people fiscal drag absolutely means even if they have an above inflation pay-rise, they're still worse off. And that's an entirely political choice by the Government, not the markets or inflation.
But all this, and the Clubcard Prices thing, is second order to the key thing. If your mortgage hasn't gone up recently, life's not too bad. If you've moved from an old fixed rate to a new one, it's horrible. And that process has a while to go yet.
Ex-employees say the issue is not being tackled for fear of slowing the growth of the social media app's business.
These frenzies - where TikTok drives disproportionate amounts of engagement to some topics - are evidenced by interviews with former staffers, app users and BBC analysis of wider social media data. They have then led to disruption and disorder in everyday life."
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66719572
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Woman’s Hour this week, the woman known by the alias Alice said it was time to “start to think about changing” the law and “staggered ages of consent”.
“There’s a reasonable argument [that] individuals between the ages of 16 and 18 can have relations with people within that same age bracket,” she said, adding that there should be a way to prevent older adults from exploiting 16- and 17-year-olds. “You’re allowed to make mistakes as a teenager, they should be with other people your own age.”
https://www.theguardian.com/culture/2023/sep/20/calls-grow-to-reassess-age-of-consent-laws-after-russell-brand-allegations
I've done modelling of this using the Scottish Household Survey and it's tricky to communicate the findings given there are so many edge cases and perverse outcomes. And that's before you discuss before/after housing costs, transport...
https://x.com/lindayax/status/1704632994453950487?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
It looks like they’re gonna pay people for tweets that go viral. Fascinating
Also, he then boasts about having no kids. Not exactly doing his but for the future of humanity, then
Take someone on a bit above minimum wage, £20k
£20k gross
£17,662 take home pay
After 7.8% pay rise
£21,560 gross
£18,683 take home pay
Difference is 5.8% which is less than inflation, so a real terms pay cut.
Fiscal drag means real wages are still falling for many. If you're well off so don't care about the tax free allowance, then it won't affect you, but for others it does.
16 and 17 year olds are children, they are not adults.
They're already below the unrestricted age of consent, which is 18 already.
For me if the process if the interesting element, the initial conditions, from which a work of art emerges, then the closest comparison is action painting. Create initial conditions, prompts, and then let the process take its course whether it's gravity and paint pots or AI programmes.
There's quite a few tales of hillwalking encounters with the late Queen and the King as I'm sure you know. I imagine that's when they got/get to play at not having the burden of royalty and just enjoy a walk like everyone else, even if everyone else doesn't actually own the estate. Surprised the bikers filmed it though - I think I'd have turned the camera off.
There's a bench overlooking the loch near the other bothy at Glas Allt Shiel and I always used to wonder whether it was anyone's favourite view.
The unrestricted age of consent in the UK is 18.
If you're in a position of authority over an 18 year old and sleep with them, you can get fired for breaking your employers policies.
If you're in a position of authority over a 16/17 year old and sleep with them, you can go to jail, as they're below the age of consent then.
Changing 'position of authority' to include anyone older than 50% + 7 wouldn't change the age of consent, just the regulations around what is already restricted.
Sensible stuff but it all needs clearing up. For yonks I have thought a 30 year old having sex with a 17 year old was a wrongun, while we obviously don’t care if two consenting 15 year olds have sex with each other, or even 15 year olds with 17 year olds for example.
(I was listening to Grayson Perry's 2013 Reith lectures recently, as part of my ongoing "listen to the whole Reith archive" project -- one of his lectures was on the whole "what is art?" question.)
The school leaving age has a hidden significance, hidden partly by loosely throwing the p-word around. It is not about leaving school but starting work and having an independent income. Those without are susceptible to the charms of anyone with a car who will stand them a bag of chips and an alcopop. See Rotherham for instance. That is also why children in care are especially vulnerable: they cannot ask mum for extra money to go out on a Friday night. Again, see Rotherham.
And if we had the suggested "Romeo and Juliet" style law [which exists in many jurisprudences already around the globe]? Yes, that would still be legal.
16 and 30 would be illegal though under a "Romeo and Juliet" style law, just as 16 and 'authority' is already illegal.
Reactions from Russians are obviously furious, recognising that nothing is being done about this by the Russian leadership.
https://x.com/wartranslated/status/1704827219942515012
Grayson Perry is great and his Reith Lectures fantastic.
In particular I loved (and use) his piece about photographs. Are they art? General rules: if they are large, they might be; if they are black and white, they could be; if anyone in them is smiling at the camera, they absolutely are not.
However, I'd note the very personal, Johnson-specific, nature of the pledge. It's not 'the Conservatives guarantee'; it's 'I guarantee'. Now, you might argue that one stands proxy for the other; you might argue that Sunak was a member of Johnson's government before and after the 2019 election. Both are legitimate cases and constitutionally traditional - but that's not what's written. (You could also argue that if the pledge *was* Johnson-specific, then Sunak doesn't have a mandate and should call a GE; that's also arguable). But none of them are slam-dunk arguments.
A delicious Churchill anecdote one hopes is not apocryphal:
Clement Attlee was once standing over the urinal as Churchill entered on the same mission. Observing Attlee, Churchill stood as far away as possible.
Attlee: “Feeling standoffish today, are we, Winston?”
WSC: “That’s right. Every time you see something big you want to nationalize it.”
https://x.com/LeescoLee3/status/1704800957161205870?s=20
Charles promised to use “the time that is granted to me as King” to strengthen the relationship between Britain and France.
Speaking to parliamentarians in the French senate, he called for a renewed entente cordiale to fight climate change and the “biodiversity emergency”.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/king-charles-france-senate-macron-visit-2023-m6cfjbrqj
Rishi must be pissed off that the King has so publicly repudiated yesterday's nonsense.
“I am hearing reports that this Senate meeting was allegedly in response to OpenAI and others informing Congress about the AGI breakthrough.”
https://x.com/tracker_deep/status/1704208715564687732?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
It got to the point whereby the Serpentine Summer Show rivalled Glasto as the social event of the summer.
This is to mind unsatisfactory, bringing in confusion where there should be none. Pick an age: 16, 18, 99, whatever. Before, illegal. After, legal. Simple. Blurring the lines is a recipe for disaster.
[Incidentally this is another example of pensionerism, where older boomers impose more and more on their law-abiding adult offspring for reasons the boomers find good]
Former GPlus boss hopes to be MP for Harpenden and Berkhamstead.
Conservative election hopeful ran a public affairs firm which counted the Russian government and state-owned energy firm Gazprom among its clients in the 2000s.
Nigel Gardner was selected for the new Harpenden and Berkhamstead parliamentary seat earlier this month.
A former European Commission spokesperson, Gardner founded agency GPlus in the early 2000s before selling a majority stake to Omnicom in 2006. He retained his role working on the firm’s business strategy until his departure in late 2009.
Under the Omnicom banner, GPlus and sister agency Ketchum landed a deal with the Russian government in 2006, and Gazprom in 2007. The Kremlin contract was initially focused on media work around Russia’s presidency of the G8 — seen at the time as a chance for closer cooperation with the West.
https://www.politico.eu/article/former-kremlin-lobbyist-nigel-gardner-picked-uk-conservative-candidate/
"...The central states of France and England, later Britain, fought 41 wars against each other between the first Anglo-French War in 1109 and the Hundred Days in 1815. On average that's a war every 17.3 years..."
Or did I miss that bit of his career?
https://x.com/curiousrefuge/status/1702076158421225957?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape#Romeo_and_Juliet_laws
Set the age of consent at 18, but with exemptions for those within a comparable age range.
Many countries and most states in America already do this.
Most people on LBC today seem to think Labour are making them buy electric cars and will remove their gas boiler. They are very pleased that Sunak has now stopped Labour from removing their ICE cars, their boilers and has removed the tax on meat, on aircraft use (especially helicopters) and the need to recycle.
There have been quite a few callers "saying I was going to vote Labour, but after Rishi's magnificent speech yesterday I am voting for Rishi, the poor voter's friend".
Yuck.
Like this man
https://x.com/tenebr_ai/status/1704825812342448259?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
Or this woman (top right)
https://x.com/willdepue/status/1704561425220534689?s=46&t=bulOICNH15U6kB0MwE6Lfw
We're going to have to switch to electric eventually, and it will be more affordable eventually, but currently its not quite there yet.
You can get a petrol vehicle like a Picanto for £13k new, whereas the cheapest comparable new BEV is £27k.
Lets say in 6 years time the BEV comes down to £21k in real terms, whereas the Picanto is still £13k, should the Picanto seriously be outlawed?
When BEVs can crossover to be the same price as ICEs are, then ICE will be well and truly dead and buried, but we're not there yet.
Washington is interesting - the unrestricted age of consent there is... 21.
With interest rates held and Sunaks man of the people impression I think this will be the week that the election became much more competitive.
Labour need to start putting out their own sound bites full of lies like the Tories and stop thinking most of the public could tie their own shoe laces .
Forums like this are not indicative of the public at large . We’re political junkies and even though there’s many disagreements I’m confident members can tie their own shoe laces !
This is pretty bad stuff. We rightly condemned Putin for doing similar. Is Modi a bit out of control?