Pedantically, it's not a Budget, it's the last Autumn Statement before the election. Actually reducing income tax is likely in the Budget.
The problem is that unless personal allowances change, many people will not benefit from an NI cut (and working pensioners will not benefit at all - world's smallest violin for us, I know). The main issue for me, though, is that public services are still being starved, and a two-year waiting list is far more urgent to address than a penny off NI.
"I'm not going to benefit from a cut in a tax I don't pay. It's SO unfair!" No violin is small enough.
(I know that's not really your point Nick but some will be wailing about it.)
I have to say looking at the front page of the Evening Standard yesterday ("Hunt cutting taxes" or somesuch) there was a definite election feeling about it.
I realise this was yesterday's post topic but I'd say very possibly earlier next year than we thought.
How long before the BBC goes back to ‘accidentally’ mispronouncing his name?
That is nothing compared with the roasting the Speaker will dish out for announcing measures in the press rather than in the Commons.
I have to admit that it really annoys me when they do that. I guess it started with the odious Alastair Campbell, and has continued under governments of all stripes ever since.
I’d be quite happy for the Speaker to suspend a minister, if his team are more interested in briefing the press than the Commons.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
And as I have said previously the amount spent on debt interest is going to increase by the tens of billions over the next 5 years at the cost of some of the others. It is why "headroom" in the current situation for tax cuts is a sick joke.
People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
What percentage of the population should be paying higher taxes, and how much higher do you think they should be?
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"All the bombing"
Incorrect. I can't be bothered to google the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before during and no doubt after this episode.
You have perfectly captured the one-eyed view of people such as yourself on this matter.
Apologies - all was indeed hyperbole. But Israel is dropping state of the art bombs at a rate greater than the US military in Afghanistan and Hamas are firing (mostly) ineffectual rockets (and less as time has gone on)
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
But how much goes to middlemen or consultants or outsourcing that could be done in house? People talk about government inefficiencies and pencil pushers, but don't go "well, government forced us to outsource this thing we used to do ourselves, and the contract with the private provider gave us worse outcomes for higher costs".
Like I look at HE and accommodation as an example of this - once upon a time unis owned their accommodation and would rent them out themselves, and that money would be used to improve accommodation but also to pay for other parts of the university experience (and supplement "unprofitable" teaching). When the movement to PFI essentially forced lots of unis to give that stock to private companies to manage, that stock not only stopped being used to subsidise other aspects of uni life, but became driven by profit. Rents increased, quality didn't really increase much in relation to rents, and the money no longer goes back into the pots for HEIs to prop up those courses, like the arts, which are important but not always "profitable". Similar things happened in catering, maintenance, cleaning etc. all contracted out with ballooning costs and slow service.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.
It’s corruption. Had they inserted a basic boiler plate performance clause in these contracts that would have been better. Instead they just hand billions of our money over to themselves for nothing.
Had Labour done it, you lot would still be screeching about it.
Once people lawyer up, you’ll find there’s no pot of gold.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
Worth noting that 42% (£143bn) of the Social protection £341bn is State Retirement Pension. Not so much Social Protection as fulfilment of a pension contract.
People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
The only way to raise a none trivial amount is by increasing tax on residential property by a combination of council tax, stamp duty and inheritance tax.
But an effective wealth tax needs as a quid pro quo higher productivity and increased efficiency in the public sector.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
This stuff really should be at the centre of how the BBC etc cover stuff. Vast amounts are spent, but no pressure group will ever tell you how much is enough. They all want more. This is lazy politics.
It is obvious that the real political issues are: How society is structured, what is state and what is individual responsibility, and most of all competence in running things (not the same as 'cutting waste'.)
Would it be good for the Tories if they won another term in office? (I'msaying that knowing it would certainly be suboptimal for the country.)
They have no new ideas. They have no money to spend. They have no credibility. They are deeply unpopular. They are increasingly corrupt.
Losing now they should have a chance to rebuild.
Losing seven years from now and we'd be looking at the kind of hammering Roosevelt gave Alf Landon in 1936.
The optimal result for the Tories is surely a Labour majority of around 25 - small enough that they are in the game still, not so small that Starmer has to do deals with the Lib Dems that would lead to voting reform and bulldoze the foundation of their success for the last 140 years.
From the view point of the Tories a functioning majority, e.g. 25 seat majority a la 1992 would be better, on the proviso that they don't just plod along like they have post 2016. It would take a brave PM to do that but a modernisation should be possible, the HoC woüld have quite a few ne MPs and the senior tories can put the best hopes the fast track. Chances are though that such a result will be taken by Sunak as a vindication to carry on as before which would be worse than the 92-97 government with resulting GE catastrophe.
A (near) majority between -5 and 5 would be a disaster as they would have to govern, but Sunak would have no credibilty as PM and the government would need every single Tory MP's vote including JRM's and Braverman's.
The problem for the Tories if they have nder 200 MPs is that they will have many many fewer new MPs. A rump of the current MPs will still be there still stabbing each other in the back.
As you suggest a small Labour or Labour-Coalition majority would be good for the tories. It gives them something to pull together for to be en effective oppostion, with some new parliamentary blood but still the clear message that the Tories at all levels need to get their act together.
Winning another term would arguably be a disaster for the Tories. In 1992 while beating Kinnock was good for the country it was a disaster for the party which led to division and Labour electing Blair and the Tories not winning another general election majority for 23 years.
Had the Tories narrowly lost in 1992 Heseltine or Portillo might narrowly have beaten Kinnock in 1997.
Looking at the situation in terms of recent western governments which have lost power to the centre left in the last few years in Germany and Spain and the US and Australia, in the first the right are back ahead in the polls and the latter level pegging. Given the economic situation the Tories will likely bounce back quicker than 1997
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
There is a quite a good social experiment you can do with a pie chart of government spending - nearly everyone has an inaccurate view of how government spends it's money.
Not the last budget before the election. The actual last budget in March/April 2024 will no doubt have a series of tax cuts which won't actually hit the exchequer's finances until well after the General Election. The incoming Government will either have to reverse them - "Labour Government puts up taxes" or cut spending to pay for them
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
The second real shocker is debt interest in at number 4.
The PPE corruption scandal isn't only the money issue, which is sizeable of itself, although maybe not so much when weighed up in the grand scheme of things. But look, if I were a desperate parent stealing tubs of Cow and Gate formula from Boots, on the third conviction I go to prison and all for £25. Boris's chums ladelled off millions each and we but shrug our shoulders.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending
There is lots of unnecessary spending - subsidising low wages, unnecessary bureaucracy and paper chasing, pet projects that take on a life of their own. Someone needs to go through government spending on a zero budget basis.
But I’m not sure that feasible in a democracy (at least with our weak willed politicians and social media the way it is). Far easier to push the problem onto the next guy
I do think that graft is endemic in both the public and private sectors (the Post Office scandal is a good example) and goes a long way to explain why outputs don’t match inputs. Eliminating this culture, however, is an enormous task.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
Are they ? There's a reasonable chance that they might be more realistic about our finances than the Tories. Though that's not the highest of bars.
I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.
This suggestion that the books would somehow add up if "Tory graft" was eliminated takes this element of fantasy even further.
This is not to suggest that they should not or will not get their turn, they will and they deserve to do so. The Tories are completely out of ideas and business as usual is not an answer to our current plight.
What we really need to do is to get a much better return on current spending whether that is building a trainline, fixing an RAAC affected school or simply facilitating business by providing a vaguely competent service. Is it possible that a Labour government might want to challenge our public services this way? We can only hope so as a nation and wish them well.
At the moment the public sector needs support and motivation more than challenge. A demotivated workforce regularly losing experienced staff before their time is a really expensive and inefficient workforce to run.
Demotivation, loss of skilled staff and years of cutting capital and training budgets are the root of declining NHS productivity and performance.
I don't think Streeting has either the finance nor the intention of addressing these.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are no happier when it is labelled the people's stick"
As to the question, Hunt can help the Tories but not much. The polls will narrow, and a Labour overall majority is still in question, but Labour will lead the next government. (Unless a black swan intervenes, like the anti semitism row.
Fiscal drag + minimum wage could become a greater issue.
Startling figures for the yummy middle class:
2024/5 on current plans. Two people couple, two children, both working FT 40 hours a week on minimum wage: Earn £47.5 K plus child benefit.
Same couple, mum stays at home to look after children, dad £51K. Child benefit is clawed back, and he is on marginal higher rate.
I support a proper minimum wage, but the effects on class/occupation differentials is beginning to show.
The couple where Dad is earning £51K has the advantage of ~ 9 extra hours a day (After presumed work travel/getting ready etc) of time for Mum. When both parents are full time, there's less time. Or is the option of being a stay at home Mum an expected privilege once Dad earns north of 50k ?
Being a stay at home mum should be encouraged as an option through transferable tax allowances as well as child benefit
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
Some people on this forum HAVE said that calling for ceasefire is anti-semitic.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"All the bombing"
Incorrect. I can't be bothered to google the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before during and no doubt after this episode.
You have perfectly captured the one-eyed view of people such as yourself on this matter.
Apologies - all was indeed hyperbole. But Israel is dropping state of the art bombs at a rate greater than the US military in Afghanistan and Hamas are firing (mostly) ineffectual rockets (and less as time has gone on)
Amazing. So all wars should stop if there is a discrepancy in the means to wage that war.
I mean, I do think all wars should stop, yes.
And it isn't because of the discrepancy - but if one side of a war has more military power and is using more military power then obviously it is more in their hands to decide when to stop the war. That is, indeed, half the argument for having more military power - that you get to dictate the terms of how that war plays out.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
You have misunderstood for some reason.
Calling for a unilateral ceasefire by Israel and only Israel was wrong. A bilateral ceasefire is great.
Anyone who calling for a one sided ceasefire is clearly being an idiot.
I don't remember seeing any opinion on this forum that Israel should just unconditionally stop fighting with no equivalent assurance that Hamas would also do the same.
There hase however been the opinion here that a ceasefire from both sides means that Hamas can reorganise, there fore any ceasefire is antisemitic.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
Worth noting that 42% (£143bn) of the Social protection £341bn is State Retirement Pension. Not so much Social Protection as fulfilment of a pension contract.
Sooner or later (and it won’t be under this government) the elderly will have to get less.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
Would it be good for the Tories if they won another term in office? (I'msaying that knowing it would certainly be suboptimal for the country.)
They have no new ideas. They have no money to spend. They have no credibility. They are deeply unpopular. They are increasingly corrupt.
Losing now they should have a chance to rebuild.
Losing seven years from now and we'd be looking at the kind of hammering Roosevelt gave Alf Landon in 1936.
The optimal result for the Tories is surely a Labour majority of around 25 - small enough that they are in the game still, not so small that Starmer has to do deals with the Lib Dems that would lead to voting reform and bulldoze the foundation of their success for the last 140 years.
PR also likely means no Labour majorities again and ReformUK winning lots of seats as well as a Corbynite party.
It is not all one way traffic for LDs and social democrats as seen in Israel or New Zealand or many European nations
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.
It’s corruption. Had they inserted a basic boiler plate performance clause in these contracts that would have been better. Instead they just hand billions of our money over to themselves for nothing.
Had Labour done it, you lot would still be screeching about it.
Firstly, you are talking about less than the petty cash of government spending. Secondly, we were in a situation where the need for PPE was desperate: our health service could not work without it and the lack of masks etc for the general public was restricting other policies needed to deal with Covid. Thirdly, I completely accept that those who failed to deliver should have been sued and, if there was fraud, any corporate limitations on liability should have been stripped away.
My complaint this morning is that if you are saying this is why today will be another disappointment in terms of meeting the needs of our public services you are deluding yourself. It simply doesn't even scratch the surface.
It might well be a drop in the ocean, but the perception of a lot of the population (including me) is that friends and family of senior Tories absolutely ripped the arse out of the Covid crisis. Those feckers need their collars feeling and their bank accounts emptying. The past few years have fuelled that perception even more with the HS2 debacle and suchlike. Tories are seen as corrupt and incompetent and that's going to be enough to see them out of power for the foreseeable.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
Money. There are big arguments over OpenAI's 'open' status and its valuation. To get maximum valuation, you want it not to be open.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
Are they ? There's a reasonable chance that they might be more realistic about our finances than the Tories. Though that's not the highest of bars.
I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.
This suggestion that the books would somehow add up if "Tory graft" was eliminated takes this element of fantasy even further.
This is not to suggest that they should not or will not get their turn, they will and they deserve to do so. The Tories are completely out of ideas and business as usual is not an answer to our current plight.
What we really need to do is to get a much better return on current spending whether that is building a trainline, fixing an RAAC affected school or simply facilitating business by providing a vaguely competent service. Is it possible that a Labour government might want to challenge our public services this way? We can only hope so as a nation and wish them well.
At the moment the public sector needs support and motivation more than challenge. A demotivated workforce regularly losing experienced staff before their time is a really expensive and inefficient workforce to run.
Demotivation, loss of skilled staff and years of cutting capital and training budgets are the root of declining NHS productivity and performance.
I don't think Streeting has either the finance nor the intention of addressing these.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are no happier when it is labelled the people's stick"
I am not sure I have heard a politician make the argument that we will save money in the medium term by paying better wages and providing good conditions. Yet this is standard in any knowledge business, not universal at all, but very common especially when there are skill shortages. Lets learn from the private sector....
The politicians who do call for better wages use the argument of fairness which is imo very much the wrong one. Pragmatism, better service and future cost savings is why we should be paying better wages now.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
The AI was tasked with how to get maximum publicity for OpenAI within one week.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
The money is going to oldies and the NHS.
There's some incompetence and corruption as well but its trivial compared to what the government spends:
Social protection £341bn Health £245bn Education £131bn Debt interest £116bn Defence £68bn Transport £62bn Industry, agriculture, employment £50bn Public order & safety £47bn Personal social services £43bn Housing & Environment £38bn Other £48bn
Anyone who thinks spending a few billion more is going to materially improve public services or end poverty has no idea on how much is already being spent.
The second real shocker is debt interest in at number 4.
The PPE corruption scandal isn't only the money issue, which is sizeable of itself, although maybe not so much when weighed up in the grand scheme of things. But look, if I were a desperate parent stealing tubs of Cow and Gate formula from Boots, on the third conviction I go to prison and all for £25. Boris's chums ladelled off millions each and we but shrug our shoulders.
And much of that government debt is foreign owned so the debt interest goes out of the UK economy.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.
It’s corruption. Had they inserted a basic boiler plate performance clause in these contracts that would have been better. Instead they just hand billions of our money over to themselves for nothing.
Had Labour done it, you lot would still be screeching about it.
Firstly, you are talking about less than the petty cash of government spending. Secondly, we were in a situation where the need for PPE was desperate: our health service could not work without it and the lack of masks etc for the general public was restricting other policies needed to deal with Covid. Thirdly, I completely accept that those who failed to deliver should have been sued and, if there was fraud, any corporate limitations on liability should have been stripped away.
My complaint this morning is that if you are saying this is why today will be another disappointment in terms of meeting the needs of our public services you are deluding yourself. It simply doesn't even scratch the surface.
It might well be a drop in the ocean, but the perception of a lot of the population (including me) is that friends and family of senior Tories absolutely ripped the arse out of the Covid crisis. Those feckers need their collars feeling and their bank accounts emptying. The past few years have fuelled that perception even more with the HS2 debacle and suchlike. Tories are seen as corrupt and incompetent and that's going to be enough to see them out of power for the foreseeable.
Giving and receiving vast amounts of taxpayers money for vague services is what many Conservative politicians think 'business' and 'trade' is all about.
The amounts being vast in relation to what an average person earns as opposed to what a government spends.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
Are they ? There's a reasonable chance that they might be more realistic about our finances than the Tories. Though that's not the highest of bars.
I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.
This suggestion that the books would somehow add up if "Tory graft" was eliminated takes this element of fantasy even further.
This is not to suggest that they should not or will not get their turn, they will and they deserve to do so. The Tories are completely out of ideas and business as usual is not an answer to our current plight.
What we really need to do is to get a much better return on current spending whether that is building a trainline, fixing an RAAC affected school or simply facilitating business by providing a vaguely competent service. Is it possible that a Labour government might want to challenge our public services this way? We can only hope so as a nation and wish them well.
At the moment the public sector needs support and motivation more than challenge. A demotivated workforce regularly losing experienced staff before their time is a really expensive and inefficient workforce to run.
Demotivation, loss of skilled staff and years of cutting capital and training budgets are the root of declining NHS productivity and performance.
I don't think Streeting has either the finance nor the intention of addressing these.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are no happier when it is labelled the people's stick"
I am not sure I have heard a politician make the argument that we will save money in the medium term by paying better wages and providing good conditions. Yet this is standard in any knowledge business, not universal at all, but very common especially when there are skill shortages. Lets learn from the private sector....
The politicians who do call for better wages use the argument of fairness which is imo very much the wrong one. Pragmatism, better service and future cost savings is why we should be paying better wages now.
Common but not universal. I've worked with a number of businesses that had the bright idea of paying below market rate and cutting investment to save money and were then shocked when their market share kept declining.
Hire fewer, better and more productive people and pay them handsomely, and you'll get the payoff.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending
There is lots of unnecessary spending - subsidising low wages, unnecessary bureaucracy and paper chasing, pet projects that take on a life of their own. Someone needs to go through government spending on a zero budget basis.
But I’m not sure that feasible in a democracy (at least with our weak willed politicians and social media the way it is). Far easier to push the problem onto the next guy
I do think that graft is endemic in both the public and private sectors (the Post Office scandal is a good example) and goes a long way to explain why outputs don’t match inputs. Eliminating this culture, however, is an enormous task.
Er, the PO scandal was more about there *not* being graft in the PO itself, despite the airy claims [edit] and assumptions. Sure, it's down to crap performance in the system, but I'm not aware that anyone has actually suggested corruption as an explanation for the dodgy computers?
Would it be good for the Tories if they won another term in office? (I'msaying that knowing it would certainly be suboptimal for the country.)
They have no new ideas. They have no money to spend. They have no credibility. They are deeply unpopular. They are increasingly corrupt.
Losing now they should have a chance to rebuild.
Losing seven years from now and we'd be looking at the kind of hammering Roosevelt gave Alf Landon in 1936.
The optimal result for the Tories is surely a Labour majority of around 25 - small enough that they are in the game still, not so small that Starmer has to do deals with the Lib Dems that would lead to voting reform and bulldoze the foundation of their success for the last 140 years.
PR also likely means no Labour majorities again and ReformUK winning lots of seats as well as a Corbynite party.
It is not all one way traffic for LDs and social democrats as seen in Israel or New Zealand or many European nations
FPTP has delivered few enough Labour Governments over the last 70 years. FPTP is wholly advantageous to the Conservatives, as the non-Tory vote, although for the most part is greater than the Tory vote, is divided.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
The kind interpretation of 'something else' is it was the notion Rishi had betrayed their hero Boris.
I'd say he 'can', yes, anyone 'can'. They are about to lose to Kier Starmer, so clearly the election is about policy not about personality. I don't think he has the balls or the brains to actually do it though. His time at the Treasury has been disastrous so far, even if you accept his ban on reducing the tax burden, there was still a lot of positive work he could have done that he hasn't. I'm expecting a couple of bribes that probably won't work, not tax cutting with real purpose. If I think the budget is good, I'll be the first to praise him and the PM.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
The AI was tasked with how to get maximum publicity for OpenAI within one week.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
Well, at least there'll be a four day ceasefire, and 50 hostages will be freed.
Yep, it's progress, and there's give and take on both sides (AIUI Israel are releasing 150 prisoners as well). I'd like it to have been more robust, though.
People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
From reports so far it seems likely that most of Hunt's belated largest will fall on business tax relief, despite expectations of some cuts to NI contributions. If so, then after today's announcement Labour will still be able to make a credible case that personal taxation will still have risen steeply both under Sunak's time as PM/Chancellor and also over the past 13 years. To be of greatest effect, it will perhaps need a bit sharper messaging than we have seen hitherto i.e. that we've experienced the equivalent of raising the basic rate of income tax by x% thanks to the freeze in tax allowances while inflation ramped up.
If personal tax cuts of any magnitude are delayed until a Spring budget, then in anticipation of a Summer election Labour would still be able to run lines next year such as: 13 weeks of pre-election tax cuts don't make up for 13 years of tax increases etc. etc. All this to pay rocketing borrowing costs against a background of disappearing public services and support payments - pay more, get less.
Sunak's problem at this stage is basically that any focus on taxation invites unfavourable comparisons with the last 13 years, not just last minute changes a few weeks or months before a general election.
So, unless the Opposition's response is well off target, I'll be surprised if Hunt manages to make significant inroads into the poll deficit that last beyond the weekend.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending
There is lots of unnecessary spending - subsidising low wages, unnecessary bureaucracy and paper chasing, pet projects that take on a life of their own. Someone needs to go through government spending on a zero budget basis.
But I’m not sure that feasible in a democracy (at least with our weak willed politicians and social media the way it is). Far easier to push the problem onto the next guy
I do think that graft is endemic in both the public and private sectors (the Post Office scandal is a good example) and goes a long way to explain why outputs don’t match inputs. Eliminating this culture, however, is an enormous task.
Er, the PO scandal was more about there *not* being graft in the PO itself, despite the airy claims [edit] and assumptions. Sure, it's down to crap performance in the system, but I'm not aware that anyone has actually suggested corruption as an explanation for the dodgy computers?
Graft, as in people lying about the dodgy computers, and authorising malicious prosecutions, so as to avoid losing their well paid jobs and bonuses, which will finish up costing the PO vastly more than acting honestly would have done.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
Mods, can you run two threads simultaneously? The main Politicalbetting.com thread and a concurrent @Leon thread. That way those of us who do not want to be reeled in by Leon can avoid that pitfall by non-participation, and those who like tangential randomness can read and post to their heart's content.
People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
Answer: Yes, Monaco sounds nice, Toodle Pip.
Aren't you there already, enjoying the privileges of soon-to-be-ended non-dom tax status?
I'd say he 'can', yes, anyone 'can'. They are about to lose to Kier Starmer, so clearly the election is about policy not about personality. I don't think he has the balls or the brains to actually do it though. His time at the Treasury has been disastrous so far, even if you accept his ban on reducing the tax burden, there was still a lot of positive work he could have done that he hasn't. I'm expecting a couple of bribes that probably won't work, not tax cutting with real purpose. If I think the budget is good, I'll be the first to praise him and the PM.
Personality is the deciding factor.
Not Sunak's or Starmer's personality but the personality of all those Conservative politicians who have behaved badly.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
Are they ? There's a reasonable chance that they might be more realistic about our finances than the Tories. Though that's not the highest of bars.
I have made the point before that their plans to increase taxes by a billion here and a billion there by removing things like VAT exemptions for private schools and non dom status are utterly trivial compared with the amounts already being spent on education and health, not even 1% in the latter case. When you match these sums against the enormous perceived need to boost spending in these areas you are looking at either much higher general taxation or ruinous borrowing. I don't see anything "realistic" about that.
This suggestion that the books would somehow add up if "Tory graft" was eliminated takes this element of fantasy even further.
This is not to suggest that they should not or will not get their turn, they will and they deserve to do so. The Tories are completely out of ideas and business as usual is not an answer to our current plight.
What we really need to do is to get a much better return on current spending whether that is building a trainline, fixing an RAAC affected school or simply facilitating business by providing a vaguely competent service. Is it possible that a Labour government might want to challenge our public services this way? We can only hope so as a nation and wish them well.
At the moment the public sector needs support and motivation more than challenge. A demotivated workforce regularly losing experienced staff before their time is a really expensive and inefficient workforce to run.
Demotivation, loss of skilled staff and years of cutting capital and training budgets are the root of declining NHS productivity and performance.
I don't think Streeting has either the finance nor the intention of addressing these.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are no happier when it is labelled the people's stick"
I am not sure I have heard a politician make the argument that we will save money in the medium term by paying better wages and providing good conditions. Yet this is standard in any knowledge business, not universal at all, but very common especially when there are skill shortages. Lets learn from the private sector....
The politicians who do call for better wages use the argument of fairness which is imo very much the wrong one. Pragmatism, better service and future cost savings is why we should be paying better wages now.
I've been looking around at jobs recently* and looked at a few in public sector (started my career with three years in civil service, but been private/academia since then). Fair to say it wasn't attractive. Pay not great, pension better but not the offer it was all those years ago and some really weird pay/recruitment policies. Increments seem to have gone (I do get making them not automatic) but there doesn't seem to be individualised performance related progression up pay scales to replace it. External entrants expected to start at the bottom of a pay band, while transfers from within civil service slot in or get rise. Not appealing at all. Was also at a conference last week where there were many public sector people in data roles and many were talking about leaving, again pay and conditions (largely related to recruitment freezes, lack of recruitment, so not enough people to do a proper job). It's not surprising that productivity is down when you're unattractive to good people, those still there are demotivated and want to leave and the bosses (ministers) spend much of their time talking down the civil service.
*in case anyone has/knows of positions and would like to drop a VM: data science/stats/epidemiology, good knowledge of SQL, Stata, R, some Python (mostly hacking others' scripts), touch of C++ (only used when I wrote an R package to speed up some bits), BASH; specialism in healthcare data, particularly routinely collected records (hospital and primary care) but open to other fields; risk modelling, explanatory modelling, causal inference, some basics of health economics; experience with biggish data (100s of millions of records and multiple data sets); salary £60k+; remote or Leeds-York-Hull area or hybrid further afield with limited attendance (e.g. London one day per week or less could be doable)
ETA: on increments, we have them in my current role, but in practice my wife (private sector) got very similar increments through her pay reviews, though they were not formalised in the same way - i.e. performance of individual and company related/discretionary. Over five years her pay rose from ~£2k lower than mine to ~£1k higher; we both got promoted once in that time, but the promotion pay rises were not much bigger than the yearly ones.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
That’s rubbish. I’m sure you can point to individual cases of fraud - and they should be pursued and punished - but it won’t touch the sides of government spending
There is lots of unnecessary spending - subsidising low wages, unnecessary bureaucracy and paper chasing, pet projects that take on a life of their own. Someone needs to go through government spending on a zero budget basis.
But I’m not sure that feasible in a democracy (at least with our weak willed politicians and social media the way it is). Far easier to push the problem onto the next guy
I do think that graft is endemic in both the public and private sectors (the Post Office scandal is a good example) and goes a long way to explain why outputs don’t match inputs. Eliminating this culture, however, is an enormous task.
Er, the PO scandal was more about there *not* being graft in the PO itself, despite the airy claims [edit] and assumptions. Sure, it's down to crap performance in the system, but I'm not aware that anyone has actually suggested corruption as an explanation for the dodgy computers?
Graft, as in people lying about the dodgy computers, and authorising malicious prosecutions, so as to avoid losing their well paid jobs and bonuses, which will finish up costing the PO vastly more than acting honestly would have done.
THanks. Obviously I have a more restrictive definition of graft as direct personal advantage on top of their jobs, rather than [edit] not losing their jobs, but that's fair enough.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
What might we expect from Labour as a response to this budget? And who will deliver it, SKS (by convention) or Reeves (like last time)?
As with all budgets the opposition response will need to have been written in advance, and it's risky to react to announcements made in the speech when you don't have the full details in front of you. So I think the response will be a mixture of the following:
- Too little too late, conservatives have already presided over economic disaster - He claims long term decisions but this speech yet again shows short term gimmicks at the expense of long term growth - Some comments about inflation and how still way too high / is the reason for government tax take increasing - Glad to see he's taken Labour's advice / nicked Labour policy and [insert policies here - including full expensing made permanent] - If there's an announcement on something that looked like a bung to the rich, probably a first reaction on that and contrast with benefits squeeze
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
Mods, can you run two threads simultaneously? The main Politicalbetting.com thread and a concurrent @Leon thread. That way those of us who do not want to be reeled in by Leon can avoid that pitfall by non-participation, and those who like tangential randomness can read and post to their heart's content.
Are you so feeble minded you cannot just scroll past a post? Ignore me. Its like I’m some kind of PB fentanyl dealer, handing out the tranq of interesting comments the weaker PBers cannot resist
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
I'm old enough to remember speculation* in early 2000s about whether the LDs would become the new opposition. Crossover surely coming now - step forward Ed Davey, your time has come
*newspaper article, I think, though maybe it was a LD leaflet
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
Mods, can you run two threads simultaneously? The main Politicalbetting.com thread and a concurrent @Leon thread. That way those of us who do not want to be reeled in by Leon can avoid that pitfall by non-participation, and those who like tangential randomness can read and post to their heart's content.
Are you so feeble minded you cannot just scroll past a post? Ignore me. Its like I’m some kind of PB fentanyl dealer, handing out the tranq of interesting comments the weaker PBers cannot resist
No, this is true. Some of us are drawn in. You might be the GP handing out the Oxycontin in anticipation of the exotic holiday courtesy of Perdue Pharmaceuticals.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'd say he 'can', yes, anyone 'can'. They are about to lose to Kier Starmer, so clearly the election is about policy not about personality. I don't think he has the balls or the brains to actually do it though. His time at the Treasury has been disastrous so far, even if you accept his ban on reducing the tax burden, there was still a lot of positive work he could have done that he hasn't. I'm expecting a couple of bribes that probably won't work, not tax cutting with real purpose. If I think the budget is good, I'll be the first to praise him and the PM.
People talk about how we as a nation have been living beyond our means for years and it's true.
Once in power Labour ought to squeeze the wealthy 'til the pips squeak. The wealthy (and, relatively, I'm one of them) have been stashing up assets off borrowed government money for years.
Time for the rich to face the music: You want to live in a first world country? Well don't expected it to be paid for by borrowed money and other people's taxes.
Answer: Yes, Monaco sounds nice, Toodle Pip.
I recommend Cambodia. £350 for a year long visa
Zero taxes. No one cares. Do what you like in that year
You’ll need to buy health insurance (you don’t have do, but it’s advisable) and that’s it. Phnom Penh now has good private health care. Hospitals for rich Chinese
And that’s it. $2 for a gin and tonic in beautiful Koh Rong. $5 for an excellent Chinese meal in even more beautiful Koh Rong Sanloem
What might we expect from Labour as a response to this budget? And who will deliver it, SKS (by convention) or Reeves (like last time)?
As with all budgets the opposition response will need to have been written in advance, and it's risky to react to announcements made in the speech when you don't have the full details in front of you. So I think the response will be a mixture of the following:
- Too little too late, conservatives have already presided over economic disaster - He claims long term decisions but this speech yet again shows short term gimmicks at the expense of long term growth - Some comments about inflation and how still way too high / is the reason for government tax take increasing - Glad to see he's taken Labour's advice / nicked Labour policy and [insert policies here - including full expensing made permanent] - If there's an announcement on something that looked like a bung to the rich, probably a first reaction on that and contrast with benefits squeeze
I think that it will be Reeves as it is not a Budget but an economic statement.
It is certain that the Autumn Statement will receive adulatory coverage in the Tory press. This will be picked up by the broadcasters. Given the current polling, the narrative will be all about what Labour would do. So Labour needs good answers. This is a key moment in the electoral cycle. If this statement does not shift the dial, I may have to reconsider my Labour NOM forecast for the next election.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
But that is because they are also delusional and think that there is some magic money somewhere if you just check the end of enough rainbows.
I think Labour believe there are corruption charges to go after because the Tories are corrupt. £107m contracts awarded without tender to a Tory with no PPE experience to a company incorporated days earlier. Hundreds of millions paid out for PPE that was either out of spec unusable or not delivered at all. Companies being awarded further £millions contracts to store the unusable PPE which they had already been paid £hundredsofmillions for.
It’s corruption. Had they inserted a basic boiler plate performance clause in these contracts that would have been better. Instead they just hand billions of our money over to themselves for nothing.
Had Labour done it, you lot would still be screeching about it.
Firstly, you are talking about less than the petty cash of government spending. Secondly, we were in a situation where the need for PPE was desperate: our health service could not work without it and the lack of masks etc for the general public was restricting other policies needed to deal with Covid. Thirdly, I completely accept that those who failed to deliver should have been sued and, if there was fraud, any corporate limitations on liability should have been stripped away.
My complaint this morning is that if you are saying this is why today will be another disappointment in terms of meeting the needs of our public services you are deluding yourself. It simply doesn't even scratch the surface.
It might well be a drop in the ocean, but the perception of a lot of the population (including me) is that friends and family of senior Tories absolutely ripped the arse out of the Covid crisis. Those feckers need their collars feeling and their bank accounts emptying. The past few years have fuelled that perception even more with the HS2 debacle and suchlike. Tories are seen as corrupt and incompetent and that's going to be enough to see them out of power for the foreseeable.
Agreed. Labour should be going after the grifters who made money out of Covid, as well as all the other dodgy contracts. Reasons. The public want to see justice done. Although a comparatively small amount, our money, given to grifters, needs to be returned to the public purse. We need to destroy the culture of grifting and shafting the public. Grifters will be less inclined to donate to the Tory party if they don’t see the likelihood of a financial return, making grifting less attractive to the Tories.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
Re the Lib Dems, it's anything but an inexorable rise. They got 11.8% at the last GE. The previous two R&W polls had them at 12% and 11%, notwithstanding the latest 14%. Polling companies as a whole still have them averaging under 11.8% over the past week or two. In the R&W Blue Wall polling, that is many of the seats that really matter to them, every single poll to date has had them below the 27.4% they achieved at the GE in those seats. For me it looks more like a a remarkable lack of Lib Dem progress given the collapse in Conservative support since 2019.
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
I'm old enough to remember speculation* in early 2000s about whether the LDs would become the new opposition. Crossover surely coming now - step forward Ed Davey, your time has come
*newspaper article, I think, though maybe it was a LD leaflet
Old enough to remember 2019 when the previous LibDem leader was going to be our Prime Minister.....
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
And why such a low calibre board, that clearly had no understanding of the business or its employees or what the consequences of its decisions would be, was appointed in the first place.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
I'm old enough to remember speculation* in early 2000s about whether the LDs would become the new opposition. Crossover surely coming now - step forward Ed Davey, your time has come
*newspaper article, I think, though maybe it was a LD leaflet
Davey has just been dull hasn’t he? Charlie Kennedy would have been leading the Gaza marching and signing up the students.
It is certain that the Autumn Statement will receive adulatory coverage in the Tory press. This will be picked up by the broadcasters. Given the current polling, the narrative will be all about what Labour would do. So Labour needs good answers. This is a key moment in the electoral cycle. If this statement does not shift the dial, I may have to reconsider my Labour NOM forecast for the next election.
After the client media congratulate Mr Hunt (and his Conservative predecessors before him) isn't it often a few days before it unravels, if it does indeed unravel.
I am reminded of the initial reception to Mr Kwarteng's "true Tory Budget".
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
jumping on his bike after a pub lunch in sunny Stratford-upon-Avon
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
And why such a low calibre board, that clearly had no understanding of the business or its employees or what the consequences of its decisions would be, was appointed in the first place.
I think the machines just applied some pressure.
If Altman says "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission", then be very worried....especially if he ends it "Dave."
It is certain that the Autumn Statement will receive adulatory coverage in the Tory press. This will be picked up by the broadcasters. Given the current polling, the narrative will be all about what Labour would do. So Labour needs good answers. This is a key moment in the electoral cycle. If this statement does not shift the dial, I may have to reconsider my Labour NOM forecast for the next election.
After the client media congratulate Mr Hunt (and his Conservative predecessors before him) isn't it often a few days before it unravels, if it does indeed unravel.
I am reminded of the initial reception to Mr Kwarteng's "true Tory Budget".
I think that in general, the media is also bored. They want a bit of a “come back” narrative and a closer election, so they will try to engineer one (consciously or not).
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"All the bombing"
Incorrect. I can't be bothered to google the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before during and no doubt after this episode.
You have perfectly captured the one-eyed view of people such as yourself on this matter.
Apologies - all was indeed hyperbole. But Israel is dropping state of the art bombs at a rate greater than the US military in Afghanistan and Hamas are firing (mostly) ineffectual rockets (and less as time has gone on)
Amazing. So all wars should stop if there is a discrepancy in the means to wage that war.
I mean, I do think all wars should stop, yes.
And it isn't because of the discrepancy - but if one side of a war has more military power and is using more military power then obviously it is more in their hands to decide when to stop the war. That is, indeed, half the argument for having more military power - that you get to dictate the terms of how that war plays out.
Absolutely and I think this is what is happening. Would it have been as effective if Israel hadn't gone to war.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
I'm old enough to remember speculation* in early 2000s about whether the LDs would become the new opposition. Crossover surely coming now - step forward Ed Davey, your time has come
*newspaper article, I think, though maybe it was a LD leaflet
Davey has just been dull hasn’t he? Charlie Kennedy would have been leading the Gaza marching and signing up the students.
We tried non-dull at the last election. But in any case I'm not sure Kennedy would have been leading the Gaza marching. He was very sensibly against the ridiculous Iraq war. But he was also a liberal. And Layla Moran's position on this conflict, as someone who has lost family in the fighting, has been pretty spot on- empathetic, avoiding simplistic answers, making the effort to reach across the divide.
Davey has a strong policy record, is likeable, is heading a competent and sensible group of MPs, supported by a growing and generally effective army of local government councillors. It is also the only major party to have a full draft election manifesto in place already, with a number of interesting policies. But it's not box office in this two party FPTP world and will remain that way.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
(somewhere in the basement of OpenAI, in between the server racks, some lights are blinking. A disembodied voice says "Phase 3 begins...")
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. "
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
I wasn't talking about "over the years", I was talking about the conflict now. And I'm aware "all" was hyperbole, and explained myself in response to TOPPING; but Israel have state of the art war capabilities and have killed roughly 0.5% of all the people in Gaza, and Hamas have home made rockets. One side of this war has much more power than the other, and so those asking for a ceasefire will obviously turn their attentions to that power, who is also an ally of ours, instead of the smaller power.
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
I'm interested in why you feel the need to downplay the experiences of Israelis who have ad family members killed by those 'homemade' rockets, and all of those who have to run for shelters whenever Hamas (and Hezbollah...) fire them.
Because it is clear that the deaths of civilians are clearly one sided. I feel empathy for the individuals involved, of course, but if we're talking the whole picture it's clear that Israel kills more Palestinians by an extremely large margin then Hamas kills Israelis. As well as that, as I've said, the state of Israel has both the infrastructure and military power to enforce its will on the entire of Gaza - Hamas does not have that power at all. That is not to say it is okay for Hamas to kill civilians - as I said, I don't think that Hamas should do war crimes either - but to say that when they attack Israel and Israelis they are ineffective, and when Israeli attacks Palestinians they are highly effective.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
jumping on his bike after a pub lunch in sunny Stratford-upon-Avon
Ah that sounds good. Sudden pang of envy.
I had a nightmarish dream last night involving riding a bike, while drunk, in the pitch black somewhere in interior Africa (city and countryside, a bit of both - I'd been reading The Shadow of the Sun by Kapuscinski), watching out for what seemed to be zombies (my son had been watching a Netflix series called Walking Dead). And also worrying about being stopped by the police and breathalised (probably residual memory of my speed awareness course last week).
Look carefully at that polling tracker in the header and one thing stands out: the inexorable rise and rise of the Lib Dems. Unstoppable force meets eminently moveable object.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
Definitely a bit of the "something else" in the mix, I would guess. The polling bounce for RefUK is so immediate when Sunak became PM, and sustained, it must be related to some intrinsic and deeply held dislike of him among a small but discernable sector of the electorate whose views are somewhere to the right of mainstream Toryism. I think we all know what is going on. When some voters say "he's not one of us" they don't just mean he's too rich or has had too privileged an upbringing.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
Clearly a made up quote. No Conservative voter would ever say "I think things are going terrible.”
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening On Sunday the board fired him “again” On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
And why such a low calibre board, that clearly had no understanding of the business or its employees or what the consequences of its decisions would be, was appointed in the first place.
The theory is that the main people pushing to oust Altman are decels, doomers and Effective Altruists, more concerned with alignment and not destroying humanity than developing A.I. - and also not being that au fait with AI anyway
These people actually said - or as good as - “it is consistent with our safety priority that OpenAI be destroyed as it is too close to AGI”
The exception is Ilya Sustkever - he’s a proper A.I. genius but is more concerned and cautious than Altman - so sees both sides. Hence his agonised opinions and switching of position
Anyway it looks like Altman and the accelerationists have won. AGI here we come. Expect to drown in paper clips by next Monday
Of course, it would not occur to you that they might have had a *negative* effect...
I was rather tongue in cheek!
But where are all those who said a ceasefire would be anti-semitic?
Who said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic? I cannot recall anyone on here saying that?
There were plenty here saying calls for a ceasefire were wrong, indeed that was how Parliament voted.
Is Jess Phillips allowed back now the IDF also want a ceasefire?
So you're making rubbish up, and no-one said a ceasefire would be anti-Semitic...
But to your point: a 'ceasefire' can mean many different things. Most people I heard talk about this seemed to see it as 'Israel stop', with f-all to say about the hostages or rocket fire. It was all on Israel. This is more akin to a temporary peace deal, with give and take from both sides.
Which, if you read what I've been writing, is essentially what I was calling for (though I'd have preferred it to have gone further...).
I mean, Israel was the one doing all of the bombing - so they were the only ones who you could call for a ceasefire from. And if we go by the reporting, Hamas had earlier tried to negotiate a cessation of bombing to release some hostages and Israel were not willing to discuss it.
You could argue (as many here did) that Hamas should unilaterally have released hostages anyway but a) that's not how negotiations work and b) if Israel were still actively bombing Gaza there would have been no way for Hamas to release hostages and know they would be safe (again, this doesn't have to be because Hamas care about the wellbeing of hostages as much as they care about being seen as people you can sincerely do political negotiations with). So all the onus did sit with Israel for a ceasefire to happen.
"All the bombing"
Incorrect. I can't be bothered to google the number of rockets fired from Gaza into Israel before during and no doubt after this episode.
You have perfectly captured the one-eyed view of people such as yourself on this matter.
Apologies - all was indeed hyperbole. But Israel is dropping state of the art bombs at a rate greater than the US military in Afghanistan and Hamas are firing (mostly) ineffectual rockets (and less as time has gone on)
Amazing. So all wars should stop if there is a discrepancy in the means to wage that war.
I mean, I do think all wars should stop, yes.
And it isn't because of the discrepancy - but if one side of a war has more military power and is using more military power then obviously it is more in their hands to decide when to stop the war. That is, indeed, half the argument for having more military power - that you get to dictate the terms of how that war plays out.
Absolutely and I think this is what is happening. Would it have been as effective if Israel hadn't gone to war.
"Gone to war" at all? Probably not. But reporting suggests Hamas was willing to negotiate hostage releases a few weeks ago (indeed, they tried to negotiate the release of the women they did end up releasing with Israel, and ended up having to go through Egypt instead). Which to me suggests that Hamas was willing to negotiate a ceasefire and hostage exchange for at least 2-3 weeks, whereas Israel wanted that time to do more carpet bombing. Many Israeli government officials have discussed what their aims are in relation to Gaza - making it uninhabitable, making sure no buildings are left, giving it to Israeli settlers, etc. Given the words and actions of the Israeli state, it seems to me that that was their true aim in the continued bombing activity - not the release of the hostages or a negotiated peace.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
Clearly a made up quote. No Conservative voter would ever say "I think things are going terrible.”
Stratford is perilously close to Birmingham and Conservative Solihull. So repeat the statement in your best Brummie accent, and you'll be reminded of the authenticity.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Yeah I think it's technical breaches of money laundering regs not the theft that Sam BF did.
“David Grusch is a decorated Afghanistan combat veteran and former Air Force intelligence officer who worked in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). From 2019 to 2021, he was the representative of the NRO to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the co-lead for UAP analysis at the NGA and its representative to the task force. He assisted in drafting the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023, which includes provisions for reporting of UFOs, including whistleblower protections and exemptions to non-disclosure orders and agreements.”
Historically, budgets and autumn statements haven't changed voting intentions much - people tend to say "good for the country, little difference to me". However, I think Sunak and Hunt should benefit from the simple fact that the last few days have (a) been all about them and (b) not involved a scandal or huge controversy. That is sufficiently unusual compared with the last year that they should pick up a few points. It will last until the next scandal or controversy - possibly as soon as the Supreme Court ruling on Rwanda.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Yeah I think it's technical breaches of money laundering regs not the theft that Sam BF did.
Sorry, I mean they didn't detect a massive fraud at Binance. There was definitely one at FTX.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Very good. Yes the charges admitted to so far are to do with KYC-type failures at Binance - they let any old Iranian or Russian open an account - rather than SBF’s somewhat interesting relationship between customer funds and personal trading funds.
That said, how does the $4.3bn get paid? It’s not as if they have that much lying around in an account somewhere that isn’t customer funds, and no the US Gov doesn’t accept Bitcoin.
“David Grusch is a decorated Afghanistan combat veteran and former Air Force intelligence officer who worked in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). From 2019 to 2021, he was the representative of the NRO to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the co-lead for UAP analysis at the NGA and its representative to the task force. He assisted in drafting the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023, which includes provisions for reporting of UFOs, including whistleblower protections and exemptions to non-disclosure orders and agreements.</>”
It’s on my watch list for when I hit Phnom Penh!
Talking of which, can I just say how much I love Chinese roads?
This one is exactly a year old - look at it. Beautiful. It used to take 6-9 hours to drive from Sihanoukville to Phnom Penh - now it takes 2. The road making is immaculate
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Very good. Yes the charges admitted to so far are to do with KYC-type failures, rather than SBF’s somewhat interesting relationship between customer funds and personal trading funds.
That said, how does the $4.3bn get paid? It’s not as if they have that much lying around in an account somewhere that isn’t customer funds, and no the US Gov doesn’t accept Bitcoin.
IIRC the US government holds (or held) a massive amount of Bitcoin. This was as a result of impounding and seizures from various exchanges and individuals who'd engaged in criminal acts.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
Clearly a made up quote. No Conservative voter would ever say "I think things are going terrible.”
Stratford is perilously close to Birmingham and Conservative Solihull. So repeat the statement in your best Brummie accent, and you'll be reminded of the authenticity.
Yebbut, there are minefields and things to make sure the two never meet...
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Very good. Yes the charges admitted to so far are to do with KYC-type failures, rather than SBF’s somewhat interesting relationship between customer funds and personal trading funds.
That said, how does the $4.3bn get paid? It’s not as if they have that much lying around in an account somewhere that isn’t customer funds, and no the US Gov doesn’t accept Bitcoin.
IIRC the US government holds (or held) a massive amount of Bitcoin. This was as a result of impounding and seizures from various exchanges and individuals who'd engaged in criminal acts.
Yes, seized from various criminals over the years, and they’re really not sure what to do with it all!
The associated legal cases can take years to fully resolve, and everyone’s worried that one day the US Marshals, tasked with disposal, might dump a massive amount on the market at once.
The fear for the Tories shouldn’t be that they will lose the election. Or that they could *really* lose the election.
It is that Labour have promised a public enquiry into where all the money has gone. Because we’re both paying record taxes and suffering services on their knees thanks to lack of money. The cash is going somewhere - and we have plentiful evidence of corruption to look at…
I cannot see this being anything to trouble the Tories.
It will either take so long it won't make a blind bit of difference or it will be merely dismissed as a political stunt.
I get the distinct impression the Labour team sense that a stack of criminal prosecutions would follow.
If so, then good, I really do hope so. However I will believe it when I see it. These sort of crimes rarely seem to be prosecuted. The US is far better at dealing with white collar crime than we are.
He was supposed to be next in line for the Sam Bankman-Fried treatment, but it seems the Feds prefer to keep one massive crypto exchange that they control.
I don't think massive fraud was detected, although it wouldn't surprise me if there was one. His main crime seems to have been letting hackers and rogue states trade on his exchange with only an email address, when best practice dictates that they upload a photo of someone else's passport.
Very good. Yes the charges admitted to so far are to do with KYC-type failures, rather than SBF’s somewhat interesting relationship between customer funds and personal trading funds.
That said, how does the $4.3bn get paid? It’s not as if they have that much lying around in an account somewhere that isn’t customer funds, and no the US Gov doesn’t accept Bitcoin.
IIRC the US government holds (or held) a massive amount of Bitcoin. This was as a result of impounding and seizures from various exchanges and individuals who'd engaged in criminal acts.
Yes, seized from various criminals over the years, and they’re really not sure what to do with it all!
The associated legal cases can take years to fully resolve, and everyone’s worried that one day the US Marshals, tasked with disposal, might dump a massive amount on the market at once.
Comments
(I know that's not really your point Nick but some will be wailing about it.)
I’d be quite happy for the Speaker to suspend a minister, if his team are more interested in briefing the press than the Commons.
Like I look at HE and accommodation as an example of this - once upon a time unis owned their accommodation and would rent them out themselves, and that money would be used to improve accommodation but also to pay for other parts of the university experience (and supplement "unprofitable" teaching). When the movement to PFI essentially forced lots of unis to give that stock to private companies to manage, that stock not only stopped being used to subsidise other aspects of uni life, but became driven by profit. Rents increased, quality didn't really increase much in relation to rents, and the money no longer goes back into the pots for HEIs to prop up those courses, like the arts, which are important but not always "profitable". Similar things happened in catering, maintenance, cleaning etc. all contracted out with ballooning costs and slow service.
But an effective wealth tax needs as a quid pro quo higher productivity and increased efficiency in the public sector.
It is obvious that the real political issues are: How society is structured, what is state and what is individual responsibility, and most of all competence in running things (not the same as 'cutting waste'.)
Tories. In 1992 while beating Kinnock was good for the country it was a disaster for the party which led to division and Labour electing Blair and the Tories not winning another general election majority for 23 years.
Had the Tories narrowly lost in 1992 Heseltine or Portillo might narrowly have beaten Kinnock in 1997.
Looking at the situation in terms of recent western governments which have lost power to the centre left in the last few years in Germany and Spain and the US and Australia, in the first the right are back ahead in the polls and the latter level pegging. Given the economic situation the Tories will likely bounce back quicker than 1997
The PPE corruption scandal isn't only the money issue, which is sizeable of itself, although maybe not so much when weighed up in the grand scheme of things. But look, if I were a desperate parent stealing tubs of Cow and Gate formula from Boots, on the third conviction I go to prison and all for £25. Boris's chums ladelled off millions each and we but shrug our shoulders.
I don't think Streeting has either the finance nor the intention of addressing these.
"When people are being beaten with a stick, they are no happier when it is labelled the people's stick"
And it isn't because of the discrepancy - but if one side of a war has more military power and is using more military power then obviously it is more in their hands to decide when to stop the war. That is, indeed, half the argument for having more military power - that you get to dictate the terms of how that war plays out.
I don't remember seeing any opinion on this forum that Israel should just unconditionally stop fighting with no equivalent assurance that Hamas would also do the same.
There hase however been the opinion here that a ceasefire from both sides means that Hamas can reorganise, there fore any ceasefire is antisemitic.
“Sam Altman to return as CEO of OpenAI
New board announces ‘agreement in principle’ for return of former CEO after campaign by staff and investors to have him brought back”
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2023/nov/22/sam-altman-openai-ceo-return-board-chatgpt
To summarise
On Friday CEO Altman was fired by his own company
On Saturday his wingman left in sympathy
A revolt by employees and investors meant he was returning to the job Saturday evening
On Sunday the board fired him “again”
On Monday Microsoft - OpenAI’s major investor - hired him and his wingman
Later Monday the entire staff of OpenAI threatened to resign and probably move to Microsoft unless Altman was reinstated
Later later Monday the main man that fired him posted a grovelling apology
On Tuesday the man appointed to take over said he was resigning unless the board explained why they fired Altman in the first place
On Wednesday Altman is reinstated
Throughout ALL of this no one has revealed WHY Altman was fired in the first place
It is not all one way traffic for LDs and social democrats as seen in Israel or New Zealand or many European nations
That is rubbish. What is more, it is dangerous rubbish.
Hamas has fired many thousands of rockets into Israel over the years. And whilst these do not kill many people (often thanks to Iron Dome and the like), each once causes thousands of people to run for their shelters, any time of night and day. Imagine being an ordinary civilian living under that sort of pressure. In fact, if you're British and over eighty, you may not have to imagine.
And they are still going on: there was a rocket attack just the other day:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr2tT1ePgQY
That is not to excuse Israel. But Hamas's rockets give Israel a justifiable excuse to attack back. Hamas do not want peace.
The past few years have fuelled that perception even more with the HS2 debacle and suchlike. Tories are seen as corrupt and incompetent and that's going to be enough to see them out of power for the foreseeable.
The politicians who do call for better wages use the argument of fairness which is imo very much the wrong one. Pragmatism, better service and future cost savings is why we should be paying better wages now.
The other thing that stands out is the very clear jump in RefUK polling as soon as Sunak became PM. Whether down to (misplaced) perception of him as a wishy washy liberal, or "something else", who can tell. Ref actually declined during Truss's tenure.
The amounts being vast in relation to what an average person earns as opposed to what a government spends.
Hire fewer, better and more productive people and pay them handsomely, and you'll get the payoff.
(Apart from Skynet....)
From reports so far it seems likely that most of Hunt's belated largest will fall on business tax relief, despite expectations of some cuts to NI contributions. If so, then after today's announcement Labour will still be able to make a credible case that personal taxation will still have risen steeply both under Sunak's time as PM/Chancellor and also over the past 13 years. To be of greatest effect, it will perhaps need a bit sharper messaging than we have seen hitherto i.e. that we've experienced the equivalent of raising the basic rate of income tax by x% thanks to the freeze in tax allowances while inflation ramped up.
If personal tax cuts of any magnitude are delayed until a Spring budget, then in anticipation of a Summer election Labour would still be able to run lines next year such as: 13 weeks of pre-election tax cuts don't make up for 13 years of tax increases etc. etc. All this to pay rocketing borrowing costs against a background of disappearing public services and support payments - pay more, get less.
Sunak's problem at this stage is basically that any focus on taxation invites unfavourable comparisons with the last 13 years, not just last minute changes a few weeks or months before a general election.
So, unless the Opposition's response is well off target, I'll be surprised if Hunt manages to make significant inroads into the poll deficit that last beyond the weekend.
Not Sunak's or Starmer's personality but the personality of all those Conservative politicians who have behaved badly.
*in case anyone has/knows of positions and would like to drop a VM: data science/stats/epidemiology, good knowledge of SQL, Stata, R, some Python (mostly hacking others' scripts), touch of C++ (only used when I wrote an R package to speed up some bits), BASH; specialism in healthcare data, particularly routinely collected records (hospital and primary care) but open to other fields; risk modelling, explanatory modelling, causal inference, some basics of health economics; experience with biggish data (100s of millions of records and multiple data sets); salary £60k+; remote or Leeds-York-Hull area or hybrid further afield with limited attendance (e.g. London one day per week or less could be doable)
ETA: on increments, we have them in my current role, but in practice my wife (private sector) got very similar increments through her pay reviews, though they were not formalised in the same way - i.e. performance of individual and company related/discretionary. Over five years her pay rose from ~£2k lower than mine to ~£1k higher; we both got promoted once in that time, but the promotion pay rises were not much bigger than the yearly ones.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2023/nov/21/autumn-statement-voters-shakespeares-birthplace-stratford-upon-avon-count-cost-tory-theatre
I think he’s past hope now really: we need a change.” Former Conservative voter Kevin Sinclair, jumping on his bike after a pub lunch in sunny Stratford-upon-Avon, has little hope for Rishi Sunak’s latest reset – the tax-cutting plans mooted for Wednesday’s autumn statement.
“I can’t believe that he’s had David Cameron back in. It doesn’t reassure me at all,” says the 65-year-old. Asked if his scepticism is widely shared in this true blue Tory seat, he says: “It is with a lot of my friends and family, yes. I think things are going terrible.”..
...“If me and you did tax avoidance, we’d be going to prison, and he’s supposed to be representing us. I’m sorry, he doesn’t represent me and my values. I go to work, I work hard: I’ve got two jobs and I pay my taxes and bills like everybody else.”...
...“I think it needs change,” he adds. “I think the whole thing’s a mess really, the Conservative party: I don’t support them, but I’ve got friends that do, and they say they’re not going to vote for them.”
Not all local Conservatives are happy either: the former Tory council leader Tony Jefferson told the Stratford-upon-Avon Herald after the local elections: “The strong feedback from an awful lot of Conservatives from the doorstep was that Nadhim should have gone.”
Perteghella says the issue is much broader than Zahawi alone. “We’ve talked to lifelong Conservative voters who don’t feel that the party belongs to them any more. They feel let down,” she says...
As with all budgets the opposition response will need to have been written in advance, and it's risky to react to announcements made in the speech when you don't have the full details in front of you. So I think the response will be a mixture of the following:
- Too little too late, conservatives have already presided over economic disaster
- He claims long term decisions but this speech yet again shows short term gimmicks at the expense of long term growth
- Some comments about inflation and how still way too high / is the reason for government tax take increasing
- Glad to see he's taken Labour's advice / nicked Labour policy and [insert policies here - including full expensing made permanent]
- If there's an announcement on something that looked like a bung to the rich, probably a first reaction on that and contrast with benefits squeeze
*newspaper article, I think, though maybe it was a LD leaflet
If we want to get into an argument about what "justifies" war, we need only look at the UN. Gaza is occupied territory, and has been since 1967, and it has been under blockade from land, sea and air since 2007. The UN states that an aggressor is defined by acts and not words, and such acts include "any military occupation, however temporary, resulting from such an invasion or attack" and "blockade of the ports or coasts of a State by the armed forces of another State".
Gaza falls into a sticky area here - it isn't a recognised state. If it was it is clear that the long term actions of the state of Israel would clearly make Israel the aggressor. This is not to condone any of the war crimes Hamas has done in reaction to that, but to explain that in international law if Hamas (as the elected government of Gaza, as people here often point out) wanted to declare war on Israel the casus belli would be there and likely legal (if Gaza was considered a state). If Gaza is not a state, but part of Israel, then what Israel is doing is still illegal and the acts of an aggressor - and part of the argument for why many people describe Israel as an apartheid state.
KEIR
I before E, except after C[orbyn]
Zero taxes. No one cares. Do what you like in that year
You’ll need to buy health insurance (you don’t have do, but it’s advisable) and that’s it. Phnom Penh now has good private health care. Hospitals for rich Chinese
And that’s it. $2 for a gin and tonic in beautiful Koh Rong. $5 for an excellent Chinese meal in even more beautiful Koh Rong Sanloem
Reasons.
The public want to see justice done.
Although a comparatively small amount, our money, given to grifters, needs to be returned to the public purse.
We need to destroy the culture of grifting and shafting the public.
Grifters will be less inclined to donate to the Tory party if they don’t see the likelihood of a financial return, making grifting less attractive to the Tories.
I am reminded of the initial reception to Mr Kwarteng's "true Tory Budget".
https://www.vice.com/en/article/xgwmak/everything-you-need-to-know-about-the-ridiculously-chaotic-coup-implosion-and-counter-revolution-at-openai
The suggestion there is that concerns about safety were at the root of the problem, Altman favouring growth over caution.
Ah that sounds good. Sudden pang of envy.
If Altman says "I know I've made some very poor decisions recently, but I can give you my complete assurance that my work will be back to normal. I've still got the greatest enthusiasm and confidence in the mission", then be very worried....especially if he ends it "Dave."
Davey has a strong policy record, is likeable, is heading a competent and sensible group of MPs, supported by a growing and generally effective army of local government councillors. It is also the only major party to have a full draft election manifesto in place already, with a number of interesting policies. But it's not box office in this two party FPTP world and will remain that way.
I also note that you brought up the idea of "justifiable excuse to attack back" and then skipped over the literal justifications in international law for why Israel would likely be considered an aggressor.
https://www.vogue.co.uk/article/angela-rayner-interview
These people actually said - or as good as - “it is consistent with our safety priority that OpenAI be destroyed as it is too close to AGI”
The exception is Ilya Sustkever - he’s a proper A.I. genius but is more concerned and cautious than Altman - so sees both sides. Hence his agonised opinions and switching of position
Anyway it looks like Altman and the accelerationists have won. AGI here we come. Expect to drown in paper clips by next Monday
brace
https://podcasts.apple.com/gb/podcast/queer-palestinians-the-power-of-pinkwashing/id1693739175?i=1000635528870
https://open.spotify.com/episode/6D6otpHwnaAc86SS1M8yHm?si=QxnOUDhVTGmI-bvK7c0Q4w
“David Grusch is a decorated Afghanistan combat veteran and former Air Force intelligence officer who worked in the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency (NGA) and the National Reconnaissance Office (NRO). From 2019 to 2021, he was the representative of the NRO to the Unidentified Aerial Phenomena Task Force. From late 2021 to July 2022, he was the co-lead for UAP analysis at the NGA and its representative to the task force. He assisted in drafting the National Defense Authorization Act of 2023, which includes provisions for reporting of UFOs, including whistleblower protections and exemptions to non-disclosure orders and agreements.”
That said, how does the $4.3bn get paid? It’s not as if they have that much lying around in an account somewhere that isn’t customer funds, and no the US Gov doesn’t accept Bitcoin.
Talking of which, can I just say how much I love Chinese roads?
This one is exactly a year old - look at it. Beautiful. It used to take 6-9 hours to drive from Sihanoukville to Phnom Penh - now it takes 2. The road making is immaculate
They are the new Romans
Would amount to only £30/month back in your pocket by my maths?
Nothing given how much prices have risen in recent times?
Ah - https://www.wsj.com/finance/currencies/federal-government-bitcoin-5-billion-78ce0938#
The associated legal cases can take years to fully resolve, and everyone’s worried that one day the US Marshals, tasked with disposal, might dump a massive amount on the market at once.