Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

Conflicts of interest – politicalbetting.com

145679

Comments

  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,365

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,425
    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,926

    I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.

    The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.

    The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

    An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

    That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.

    The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.

    In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    True. The contrary argument is that the last election created a whole cohort of new floating voters - since in addition to the normal folk who swing about between the parties and the armchair, in the so-called red wall, a lot of lifelong Labour voters took a punt on the Tories for the first time. This means that the pool of voters with the potential to vote differently from last time is the largest ever.
  • Options
    TimSTimS Posts: 10,638

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    The 'it costs too much' screeching comes straight from the Republican/Musky Baby must-let-Russia-win mouths. It is not something created by Biden's administration.

    It's stupid of them (and their supporters), because it's cheaper to help Ukraine win now than have to fight Russia later, and the vast majority of that money is being spent in the US.
    I don’t think they have any plan to fight Russia later. They - at least some of them - support Russia. They actively want it to win.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
  • Options
    StuartinromfordStuartinromford Posts: 15,249
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
    Probably for the best. The elegant thing about the golden rule is that it sets a standard that nobody actually meets; the closer you get, the more aware we become of the ways we don't meet it.
  • Options
    .
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    The 'it costs too much' screeching comes straight from the Republican/Musky Baby must-let-Russia-win mouths. It is not something created by Biden's administration.

    It's stupid of them (and their supporters), because it's cheaper to help Ukraine win now than have to fight Russia later, and the vast majority of that money is being spent in the US.
    I don’t think they have any plan to fight Russia later. They - at least some of them - support Russia. They actively want it to win.
    There's no difference between Trump and Corbyn in that regard.

    Anyone making excuses for either of them is taking us all for fools.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    How does the BBC plan to deal with him during the election campaign, when everything he says makes the front pages and brings into question their own impartiality?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,559

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    And one whose precepts are broken on such a massive scale?
    Humans are non-linear. Which is why attempts to 100% enforce any rule system is fucked in the head.

    A simple set of rules, with a whole bunch of exceptions on a case by case base is closer to reality.
  • Options
    carnforthcarnforth Posts: 3,423
    edited January 16
    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063

    I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.

    The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.

    The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

    An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

    That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.

    The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.

    In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    And, achieving that swing will not be a problem.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,669
    A
    Sandpit said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    How does the BBC plan to deal with him during the election campaign, when everything he says makes the front pages and brings into question their own impartiality?
    It only brings into question their impartiality because people on the right decide to question their impartiality - which they are going to do anyway, Lineker or not. It's the equivalent of the left wittering on about the "Murdoch Press".

    Given current public sentiment against the Tories, it's a miracle the BBC is as impartial as it is. They are having to dig very deep to find anyone pro-Sunak at this point, but still just about managing.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 893
    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
    Of the 10, only two are against the law (kill, steal).

    Three are generally advised against from an ethical perspective (lie, covet, adultery), but most people do the first two of these from time to time.

    One is debatable depending on how they treat you (honour parents).

    The other four are religious practice with no secular relevance.

    It's not a great hit rate.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,666
    TimS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    The 'it costs too much' screeching comes straight from the Republican/Musky Baby must-let-Russia-win mouths. It is not something created by Biden's administration.

    It's stupid of them (and their supporters), because it's cheaper to help Ukraine win now than have to fight Russia later, and the vast majority of that money is being spent in the US.
    I don’t think they have any plan to fight Russia later. They - at least some of them - support Russia. They actively want it to win.
    I agree - I don't think they have any plan to fight Russia *at the moment*. But Russia, China and the USA all want to be top dog. The USA is at the moment, but China has the capability to (but I don't think it will under ordinary circumstances...), and Russia does not have the capability, but has the desire nonetheless.

    It won't take too much for the three to come into some form of conflict, if they (meaning China and Russia) continue their silly games. Especially with a GOP president.
  • Options
    MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 50,532

    The Iowa thing is hardly a surprise. A substantial minority of Americans think Trump is the Messiah and won’t accept any other result. Regardless of what the various courts or even the general election decides.

    It will need God to make a personal appearance and smite Trump for his supporters to question his divine right right to rule.

    Which would at least be good telly.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    As Sean_F put it so eloquently the party of President Reagan is now Putin's catamites
    It's already destabilising.

    I doubt Iran and Russia would have been so brazen otherwise. But, tbf, Biden also gave Russia a bit of a reason to believe they might get away with it too by withdrawing from 'Stan.

    It's not just the USA. France and Italy and other European countries keep copping out when it actually requires 100% Western solidarity each and every time.
  • Options
    algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 11,126
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    No, but it gives the impression of being a truly free and very competitive market.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063
    I'm not depressed at all yesterday and nor was I yesterday. If I felt that at all it was between Christmas and NY with the endless storms of doom.

    What does get me down is Winter continuing into March or even April and refusing to bog off.

    Or us losing to France in the Six Nations.
  • Options
    BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 32,967
    DavidL said:

    Seems just about a perfect result for Trump with near enough 50% of the vote and no clear rival emerging with DeSantis apparently soldiering on on the back of his second place. The GOP are not going to stop Trump, it will have to be seen if the courts can.

    That 50% of committed GOP voters didn't vote for him has to be a small glimmer of hope?
  • Options
    MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 45,559
    A
    Nigelb said:
    Fun thought - increasing permanent staff to deal with this would massively reduce take home pay for a large number of medics.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,669
    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,356
    @DPMcBride

    I've seen (and done) some brazen things over the years, but Team Badenoch releasing Liz Truss's lobbying letter on exports to China under FOI, and then claiming it was all a mistake, is right up there in the top drawer. Via Graham Lanktree's excellent sleuthing for Politico.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Increases in theft thanks to new technology defeating keyless entry systems, and increased repair costs and timescales thanks to supply chain disruption and new manufacturing techniques especially on EVs.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,425
    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    You obviously don't read newspapers. It's all.over them.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Not me; it seems an extraordinary figure.
    Seen not dissimilar hikes in buildings insurance - but over the last couple of years.
  • Options
    LeonLeon Posts: 49,137

    I'm not depressed at all yesterday and nor was I yesterday. If I felt that at all it was between Christmas and NY with the endless storms of doom.

    What does get me down is Winter continuing into March or even April and refusing to bog off.

    Or us losing to France in the Six Nations.

    You are now more than halfway through calendrical winter. Be of good cheer. Admittedly it is easier to say that from warm sunny Phnom Penh but hey
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    Or people stop driving.
    If you're a new driver, you could be paying £2-3k annually. That's a serious disincentive to go through the bother of passing a driving test.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063
    IanB2 said:

    I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.

    The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.

    The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

    An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

    That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.

    The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.

    In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    True. The contrary argument is that the last election created a whole cohort of new floating voters - since in addition to the normal folk who swing about between the parties and the armchair, in the so-called red wall, a lot of lifelong Labour voters took a punt on the Tories for the first time. This means that the pool of voters with the potential to vote differently from last time is the largest ever.
    I think the same reason the Tories won a big majority last time through a somewhat incoherent coalition nationwide is the same reason they will lose this time.

    The glue of Corbyn and Brexit, and too many promises, that held it together has gone together with far too many "events", poor ethics and corruption.

    To be fair, not much of that is Sunak's fault. He just doesn't have the political skills or vision to play the best possible hand from the awful cards he's got.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,844
    edited January 16

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    When the BBC uses your and my money to project soft power around the world it uses Gary Lineker as its face. I'm sure that people in shanty towns across the globe will be checking to see whether Lineker's production company formally makes him an employee or contractor to the BBC.

    You can't have it both ways - either have a privately-funded BBC with Lineker presenting in From the River to the Sea underpants, or, as the face of a public institution, he should STFU.
  • Options
    RattersRatters Posts: 893
    Ratters said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
    Of the 10, only two are against the law (kill, steal).

    Three are generally advised against from an ethical perspective (lie, covet, adultery), but most people do the first two of these from time to time.

    One is debatable depending on how they treat you (honour parents).

    The other four are religious practice with no secular relevance.

    It's not a great hit rate.
    Incidentally, despite his popularity with the religious right, I suspect Trump has only successfully followed 1 out of 10 commandments.
  • Options
    squareroot2squareroot2 Posts: 6,425

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    I don't care what the legal niceties about Linekers employnment relationship are. He works for the BBC. They employ him via his contract whether by a Compsny or not.
  • Options
    Scott_xPScott_xP Posts: 34,356

    To be fair, not much of that is Sunak's fault. He just doesn't have the political skills or vision to play the best possible hand from the awful cards he's got.

    ...
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063
    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    I ignore Gary Lineker.

    It helps I'm not on social media.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201

    DavidL said:

    Seems just about a perfect result for Trump with near enough 50% of the vote and no clear rival emerging with DeSantis apparently soldiering on on the back of his second place. The GOP are not going to stop Trump, it will have to be seen if the courts can.

    That 50% of committed GOP voters didn't vote for him has to be a small glimmer of hope?
    Yes, it's not the best state for his only realistic challenger. Haley needs to pull off a win in New Hampshire, or at the very least come within a couple of percent of him.

    DeSantis struggling on doesn't help.
  • Options
    kamskikamski Posts: 4,365
    Ratters said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
    Of the 10, only two are against the law (kill, steal).

    Three are generally advised against from an ethical perspective (lie, covet, adultery), but most people do the first two of these from time to time.

    One is debatable depending on how they treat you (honour parents).

    The other four are religious practice with no secular relevance.

    It's not a great hit rate.
    Yes, even as a child I thought having 'don't take the Lord's name in vain' in the same category as 'don't murder people' was a bit weird. Also, if you need a behaviour code to tell you not to kill people, then you have bigger problems than whether you covet your neighbours' oxen.

    I think you can make a case for all the commandments with a bit of creative interpretation eg - I've seen arguments that 'don't take the Lord's name in vain' means you shouldn't make statements like swearing a solemn oath unless you really mean it and will stick to it. But it's all a bit of a mess.

    The 'golden rule' is a better basis that has stood the test of time, and is one of the few 'rules' that is common to most religions and codes of ethical behaviour
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,669
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    Or people stop driving.
    If you're a new driver, you could be paying £2-3k annually. That's a serious disincentive to go through the bother of passing a driving test.
    It's going to destroy what's left of the rural economy - young people have yet another push factor for living in cities and towns. And given bus services have been cut by 50% since 2010... ouch.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063

    The Iowa thing is hardly a surprise. A substantial minority of Americans think Trump is the Messiah and won’t accept any other result. Regardless of what the various courts or even the general election decides.

    It will need God to make a personal appearance and smite Trump for his supporters to question his divine right right to rule.

    Which would at least be good telly.
    It would require another Republican candidate to be even more entertaining and good at trolling the other side than he is.

    That's where we're at.
  • Options
    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    When the BBC uses your and my money to project soft power around the world it uses Gary Lineker as its face. I'm sure that people in shanty towns across the globe will be checking to see whether Lineker's production company formally makes him an employee or contractor to the BBC.

    You can't have it both ways - either have a privately-funded BBC with Lineker presenting in From the River to the Sea underpants, or, as the face of a public institution, he should STFU.
    My policy on *all* celebs is that they should STFU. In his case talk about Football. If they want to talk up something universally good - like a campaign on mental health - then great. Otherwise I don't care what JKR thinks about trans or what Lineker thinks about politics.

    But - and its a big but - the right don't want Lineker to shut up. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them to shut up. They don't want anyone digging the dirt on the PO or Teesport or PPE or any of the other massive corruptions the right are elbows deep in.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,375
    Ratters said:

    Ratters said:

    kamski said:

    Sandpit said:

    IanB2 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Cookie said:

    Entirely off topic, but ... my 12 year old daughter has just drifted in in floods of tears. She has just, through school RS lessons, come across the concept of Hell, and is now very frightened. Only in a 'this is what people used to believe' type way - it's not a religious school - but still
    I tried to reassure her that it didn't exist, but:
    a) how interesting that our culture is now so secular that someone can get to the age of 12 without coming across the concept of hell, and
    b) what utter bastards religions are. You can go for ages without thinking about it, thinking yes, maybe religion has done some good, but that's because you've grown up in a basically Christian idiom. I'm now feeling a furious and righteous atheist fury that religions would terrorise people so fo so long.

    Sorry to hear it. It's intriguing how different people have different reactions to things. I've been interested in religion since primary school and not once have I ever been terrified or bothered by anything to do with religion. I've never taken any of it very seriously, even when we had the local vicar sternly preaching at us during primary school assembly.
    Plenty of people who have suffered strict religious upbringings or educations would attest differently, and given their often tragic tales, we should respect the lifelong damage that it can do.
    Plenty of others respect that a religious upbringing teaches us how best to behave, and that concepts such as Hell exist to train us to be good people.

    Has there ever been a simpler code of good human behaviour than the Ten Commandments?
    Absolutely, the "golden rule" of treat others as you want to be treated.

    Besides the Ten Commandments is not a good code of human behaviour, which is why most of them aren't even laws.
    Though you can have codes of good human behaviour which aren't laws - the 'golden rule' isn't a law in any jurisdiction so far as I know.

    But I agree the Ten Commandments aren't that great - partly because they mix things up which are rightly criminal offences (don't kill), with general advice (don't covet), and specific religious practice (keep the sabbath holy).
    Of the 10, only two are against the law (kill, steal).

    Three are generally advised against from an ethical perspective (lie, covet, adultery), but most people do the first two of these from time to time.

    One is debatable depending on how they treat you (honour parents).

    The other four are religious practice with no secular relevance.

    It's not a great hit rate.
    Incidentally, despite his popularity with the religious right, I suspect Trump has only successfully followed 1 out of 10 commandments.
    As many as that?
  • Options
    MexicanpeteMexicanpete Posts: 26,042
    ...

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    Lineker has to be let go by the BBC. His stated views on Gaza/Israel and British Politics are contrary to the BBC's editorial line.

    Laura Kuenssberg is on the right page, calling out Starmer's inconsistencies over Parliamentary scrutiny of the air strike on Yemen. To be on the safe side, perhaps Laura should take up the reins at MOTD.
  • Options
    FoxyFoxy Posts: 45,887
    Nigelb said:
    More than half was on Bank staff, which essentially means overtime or zero hours contracts. Mrs Foxy works purely bank, but there is always work so typically 3 days a week. She has been offered a proper contract but prefers the flexibility. She would be paid more on a regular contract.
  • Options

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    I don't care what the legal niceties about Linekers employnment relationship are. He works for the BBC. They employ him via his contract whether by a Compsny or not.
    I'm not going to endlessly discuss the facts because they don't change. Lineker is not employed by the BBC. Lineker the person is legally different to Lineker the company director. If its good enough for all of the Tory grandees, it's good enough for uppity lefties.

    BTW what he tweeted and deleted was *outrageous*. But so what. Funny how the right who berate cancel culture are so desperate to have him cancelled...
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    I ignore Gary Lineker.

    It helps I'm not on social media.
    I rely on outraged Tories to keep me informed.

    If they all took your sensible approach, he'd get very little attention.
  • Options
    bondegezoubondegezou Posts: 8,670
    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those in the US saying the money could be better spent domestically aren’t, of course, actually in favour of spending money domestically. They’re the same people who vote for free school meals to be cancelled, benefits to be cut, the IRS to have less funding, etc.
  • Options
    TOPPINGTOPPING Posts: 41,844

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    When the BBC uses your and my money to project soft power around the world it uses Gary Lineker as its face. I'm sure that people in shanty towns across the globe will be checking to see whether Lineker's production company formally makes him an employee or contractor to the BBC.

    You can't have it both ways - either have a privately-funded BBC with Lineker presenting in From the River to the Sea underpants, or, as the face of a public institution, he should STFU.
    My policy on *all* celebs is that they should STFU. In his case talk about Football. If they want to talk up something universally good - like a campaign on mental health - then great. Otherwise I don't care what JKR thinks about trans or what Lineker thinks about politics.

    But - and its a big but - the right don't want Lineker to shut up. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them to shut up. They don't want anyone digging the dirt on the PO or Teesport or PPE or any of the other massive corruptions the right are elbows deep in.
    "the right...want everyone who doesn't agree with them to shut up..."

    Well first off everyone wants everyone who doesn't agree with them to shut up. But secondly, those issues you name are across parties and people from all parties to well and badly. And as we now all know, it was someone of the right, a politician to boot, who was so important to the investigation of the PO so that theory falls down on inspection.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:
    More than half was on Bank staff, which essentially means overtime or zero hours contracts. Mrs Foxy works purely bank, but there is always work so typically 3 days a week. She has been offered a proper contract but prefers the flexibility. She would be paid more on a regular contract.
    That's useful context.
    But what proportion of 'bank staff' is overtime working ?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201

    TOPPING said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    When the BBC uses your and my money to project soft power around the world it uses Gary Lineker as its face. I'm sure that people in shanty towns across the globe will be checking to see whether Lineker's production company formally makes him an employee or contractor to the BBC.

    You can't have it both ways - either have a privately-funded BBC with Lineker presenting in From the River to the Sea underpants, or, as the face of a public institution, he should STFU.
    My policy on *all* celebs is that they should STFU. In his case talk about Football. If they want to talk up something universally good - like a campaign on mental health - then great. Otherwise I don't care what JKR thinks about trans or what Lineker thinks about politics.

    But - and its a big but - the right don't want Lineker to shut up. They want everyone who doesn't agree with them to shut up. They don't want anyone digging the dirt on the PO or Teesport or PPE or any of the other massive corruptions the right are elbows deep in.
    That's most illiberal of you - why should they shut up ?
    Just choose to ignore.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Foxy said:

    Nigelb said:
    More than half was on Bank staff, which essentially means overtime or zero hours contracts. Mrs Foxy works purely bank, but there is always work so typically 3 days a week. She has been offered a proper contract but prefers the flexibility. She would be paid more on a regular contract.
    Would she earn more per shift on a regular contract though, or do you mean that she can do three bank shifts of her own choosing for nearly as much as a full-time employment contract?
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    This is already a major part of the problem. Uninsured motorists have to be financed by someone when they cause damage and that is the mugs who do insure. We are already in a negative spiral where the cost of insurance is driving (hah) an increasing number to be uninsured and the cost to the insured.
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    I ignore Gary Lineker.

    It helps I'm not on social media.
    I rely on outraged Tories to keep me informed.

    If they all took your sensible approach, he'd get very little attention.
    I don't agree with what he says and I think he abuses his platform to megaphone his views out, but, I don't think he changes many minds by doing it.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290
    Iowa.

    F*ck.



  • Options
    MattWMattW Posts: 19,459

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    Lineker enrages Tories / fellow travellers. Its fine for GBeebies to have Richard Tice interview Nigel Farage, or Rees-Mogg interview Jeremy Hunt. Nice impartial news. But Lineker? HOW DARE HE. Same with Vorderman. Same with anyone who holds up a mirror and shows the right just how ugly it politics are.

    And before anyone says "eugh but Lineker is employed by the BBC" go back and check the facts. No. He isn't. We've been round this circle before.

    The election campaign is already nasty and it will be brutal. The right are already throwing out the most egregious lies and smears. It seems rather bizarre that they get so upset about people digging into hidden facts or even asking questions...
    I don't care what the legal niceties about Linekers employnment relationship are. He works for the BBC. They employ him via his contract whether by a Compsny or not.
    I'm not going to endlessly discuss the facts because they don't change. Lineker is not employed by the BBC. Lineker the person is legally different to Lineker the company director. If its good enough for all of the Tory grandees, it's good enough for uppity lefties.

    BTW what he tweeted and deleted was *outrageous*. But so what. Funny how the right who berate cancel culture are so desperate to have him cancelled...
    I think of Lineker as the gormless 'celebrity generally-left', as a counterpart to the gormless 'London dinner-party left'. Plus Lineker is an attention-seeker.

    Both have their heads somewhere very strange, but are less concerning than some Trade Union leaders.

    And no - that doesn't persuade me seriously to consider voting for Sunak and the Shysters. :smile:
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    Or people stop driving.
    If you're a new driver, you could be paying £2-3k annually. That's a serious disincentive to go through the bother of passing a driving test.
    It's going to destroy what's left of the rural economy - young people have yet another push factor for living in cities and towns. And given bus services have been cut by 50% since 2010... ouch.

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those in the US saying the money could be better spent domestically aren’t, of course, actually in favour of spending money domestically. They’re the same people who vote for free school meals to be cancelled, benefits to be cut, the IRS to have less funding, etc.
    The money's going to be spent anyway if they want to replace near end of life stocks of munitions.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    Nigelb said:

    Nigelb said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    You seem to be helping him.
    I'd be completely unaware of whatever it is otherwise.
    I ignore Gary Lineker.

    It helps I'm not on social media.
    I rely on outraged Tories to keep me informed.

    If they all took your sensible approach, he'd get very little attention.
    I read this stuff on here this morning and vaguely wondered what he had done now. But I couldn’t be arsed to find out.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Eabhal said:

    A

    Sandpit said:

    I see Lineker has been forced to take down his nasty retweet. One feels it was done deliberately. His protestation of a misunderstanding is bullshit. IS lLineker trying to get as much notoriety as possible for his post MOTD podcast interests? Is there no such thing as bad publicity for this odious individual.

    How does the BBC plan to deal with him during the election campaign, when everything he says makes the front pages and brings into question their own impartiality?
    It only brings into question their impartiality because people on the right decide to question their impartiality - which they are going to do anyway, Lineker or not. It's the equivalent of the left wittering on about the "Murdoch Press".

    Given current public sentiment against the Tories, it's a miracle the BBC is as impartial as it is. They are having to dig very deep to find anyone pro-Sunak at this point, but still just about managing.
    The BBC has an obligation to remain politically impartial, especially during a general election campaign.

    Having their highest-paid member of staff, according to their own pay reporting, go off-piste in a particular political direction, should be high on the risk register of the senior management.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295
    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Rookie numbers. Mine is nearly 7 grand...
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Rookie numbers. Mine is nearly 7 grand...
    For how many cars?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    edited January 16
    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    Or people stop driving.
    If you're a new driver, you could be paying £2-3k annually. That's a serious disincentive to go through the bother of passing a driving test.
    It's going to destroy what's left of the rural economy - young people have yet another push factor for living in cities and towns. And given bus services have been cut by 50% since 2010... ouch.

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those in the US saying the money could be better spent domestically aren’t, of course, actually in favour of spending money domestically. They’re the same people who vote for free school meals to be cancelled, benefits to be cut, the IRS to have less funding, etc.
    The money's going to be spent anyway if they want to replace near end of life stocks of munitions.
    I saw an article yesterday saying that the UK had increased its shell production 8 fold. Probably still nowhere near enough but a positive start.

    On the US side it is the Bradley’s that have impressed. I saw video last week of one taking down a MBT ( with a bit of help from a drone). Its speed and manoeuvrability have proved real winners.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290
    NATO could very well be finished by end of this month next year and itv's morning tv is prattling on, yet again, about bloody small boats.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Rookie numbers. Mine is nearly 7 grand...
    I wonder if they actually want your business.
  • Options
    EabhalEabhal Posts: 6,669
    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    This is already a major part of the problem. Uninsured motorists have to be financed by someone when they cause damage and that is the mugs who do insure. We are already in a negative spiral where the cost of insurance is driving (hah) an increasing number to be uninsured and the cost to the insured.
    I follow a few Police Scotland accounts and it extraordinary how many they catch when they do a campaign. That and drug driving...

    My car was written off by an uninsured hit and run. Had a great experience with my insurer, but no wonder it's so expensive.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290
    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Maybe N Hampshire will tell us.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,154
    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Not particularly. She couldn't even beat ol' De Sanctamonious into 2nd place.
  • Options
    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Closer. So what - Trump will win every contest comfortably. Whether he turns up or not. Doubly so if he is actually excluded from a ballot.

    Germany voted for fascism. 40% of America is doing the same. What boggles the mind are the "Christians" claiming this whoring lying crook is anointed by God to uphold the Ten Commandments. Just how stupid are these people?
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    edited January 16
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Rookie numbers. Mine is nearly 7 grand...
    Not all young revolutionaries are so well heeled.

    Also, bargain.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    This is already a major part of the problem. Uninsured motorists have to be financed by someone when they cause damage and that is the mugs who do insure. We are already in a negative spiral where the cost of insurance is driving (hah) an increasing number to be uninsured and the cost to the insured.
    I follow a few Police Scotland accounts and it extraordinary how many they catch when they do a campaign. That and drug driving...

    My car was written off by an uninsured hit and run. Had a great experience with my insurer, but no wonder it's so expensive.
    That “great service” normally includes a “whiplash” claim for every small bump starting at £1k. That is another part of the problem.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295
    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Labour costs are behind some of it. Dealers have now been hollowed out to sales reptiles and lube techs with very few mechanics. Most accident damage involves bodywork which is very labour intensive to do properly.

    Additionally, if the air bags go off the interior is trashed - very labour intensive again.

    My current daily (Mk.7 GTI Clubsport) was a Class N write off due to front and rear bumper damage and airbag deployment. Probably a grand in parts to fix it but written off due to labour costs.
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295
    edited January 16
    Sandpit said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Rookie numbers. Mine is nearly 7 grand...
    For how many cars?
    M6, 3 x 911, GTI, Pan-America, M1000RR. TPF&T!!!!
  • Options
    Andy_JSAndy_JS Posts: 28,290
    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290
    Trying to keep the hope going...

    Bill Kristol
    @BillKristol
    ·
    6h
    So it looks as if almost half of Iowa Republican primary voters voted against Donald Trump, the virtual incumbent. And Nikki Haley came from under 5% a few months ago to a likely second place finish at around 20%.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.

    See those numbers in the context of, for example, the Maui fires in Hawaii last year.
    https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/11/20/hawaii-news/maui-wildfire-recovery-costs-prompt-state-spending-cuts/

    One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.

    If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290

    (((Dan Hodges)))
    @DPJHodges
    ·
    3h
    Again, sorry, but I did say this would happen. Two weeks ago we were told Haley and DeSantis were neck and neck. Over the last couple of days we were told Haley was surging. In reality she was falling behind DeSantis.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Not particularly. She couldn't even beat ol' De Sanctamonious into 2nd place.
    And a significant amount of her support was from Dems in Iowa being encouraged to register as Republicans.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,990
    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
    The switch to China really got going under Obama who dismantled the US army in Europe and focused on the Pacific. But we like him because he made nice speeches and it so much easier to blame Trump.
  • Options
    IanB2IanB2 Posts: 47,926
    edited January 16

    IanB2 said:

    I know it is gauche to keep on reminding people of my brilliance but the BBC has finally caught up with what I have been saying for the last few years.

    The Labour Party would need a record swing in votes at the next general election to win a majority in the House of Commons, according to analysis of the new electoral map.

    The next election will be fought on new constituency boundaries, redrawn to reflect population changes and to try to even out voter numbers in each area.

    An analysis of these changes for BBC News, ITV News, Sky News and the Press Association suggests Labour needs a national swing of 12.7% to win with just a small majority.

    That's considerably higher than the 10.2% achieved by Tony Blair in 1997 and higher even than the 12% achieved by Clement Attlee in 1945.

    The swing from the Conservatives to Labour would need to be uniform, to follow the same pattern everywhere, with other parties seeing no change in performance since 2019.

    In practice, the picture will be more complicated, so this is a rough guide. But a uniform national swing has been a reliable model for general elections in the UK over a long period of time.


    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67361138

    True. The contrary argument is that the last election created a whole cohort of new floating voters - since in addition to the normal folk who swing about between the parties and the armchair, in the so-called red wall, a lot of lifelong Labour voters took a punt on the Tories for the first time. This means that the pool of voters with the potential to vote differently from last time is the largest ever.
    I think the same reason the Tories won a big majority last time through a somewhat incoherent coalition nationwide is the same reason they will lose this time.

    The glue of Corbyn and Brexit, and too many promises, that held it together has gone together with far too many "events", poor ethics and corruption.

    To be fair, not much of that is Sunak's fault. He just doesn't have the political skills or vision to play the best possible hand from the awful cards he's got.
    True, in terms of the voter mood.

    But in terms of the statistics and the modelling, if I were doing it I would first treat the 'red wall' lifelong Labour-to-Tory switchers of 2019 (and to some extent 2017, as despite all the Johnson hype you can see the trend in the seat results before the clown came along) as a separate model, sort out where they're going to go (back to Labour, everything suggests), and then secondly add the usual nationwide UNS model on top, and then thirdly think about whether tactical voting is likely to be stronger, or act differently, next time.

    The Tories will be fighting on two very different fronts, and it is encouraging that there will be a lot of formerly safe Home Counties seats where the Conservatives are going to have to do a little more than the usual lazy single freepost leaflet and a bit of laid back canvassing among supporters for show.
  • Options
    rottenboroughrottenborough Posts: 59,290
    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Not particularly. She couldn't even beat ol' De Sanctamonious into 2nd place.
    And a significant amount of her support was from Dems in Iowa being encouraged to register as Republicans.
    Only the indies can save the republic now. How will they swing in the final election?
  • Options
    Casino_RoyaleCasino_Royale Posts: 57,063

    Sandpit said:

    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Not particularly. She couldn't even beat ol' De Sanctamonious into 2nd place.
    And a significant amount of her support was from Dems in Iowa being encouraged to register as Republicans.
    Only the indies can save the republic now. How will they swing in the final election?
    Only the grail can save your father now..
  • Options
    Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 13,295
    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    US aid to Ukraine is 60/40 military/cash. So Ukraine have had about $30bn in cash. Not thinking that is the best possible use of the US taxpayers' $30bn is a legitimate position.

    Not all of the military aid is hardware, half of it is logistics (ie endless C-17 rotations), training, etc. which has to be paid for by the DoD out of current appropriations.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 76,154
    edited January 16
    Dura_Ace said:

    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Labour costs are behind some of it. Dealers have now been hollowed out to sales reptiles and lube techs with very few mechanics. Most accident damage involves bodywork which is very labour intensive to do properly.

    Additionally, if the air bags go off the interior is trashed - very labour intensive again.

    My current daily (Mk.7 GTI Clubsport) was a Class N write off due to front and rear bumper damage and airbag deployment. Probably a grand in parts to fix it but written off due to labour costs.
    Just checked, last renewal was a smidgen under £250. The most annoying part is insurers don't properly keep track of my no claims. It's 18 years (19 upcoming) I haven't claimed in, not 9 !

    I feel driving a 16 plate Peugeot helps my cause a bit with insurers tbf. £0 car tax too ;)
  • Options
    I am not sure learning Trump had won last night is more depressing than Farage guesting at his party
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761
    Many insurers are now refusing to cover Range Rovers in central London, after an estimated 1% of them were stolen last year!

    https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/range-rover-insure-london-premiums-soar-b2437075.html
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Pulpstar said:

    Nigelb said:

    Iowa.

    F*ck.

    The question is how close would it have been had there only been Trump and Haley competing.
    Not particularly. She couldn't even beat ol' De Sanctamonious into 2nd place.
    In Iowa.
    I'm surprised she got so close.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.

    See those numbers in the context of, for example, the Maui fires in Hawaii last year.
    https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/11/20/hawaii-news/maui-wildfire-recovery-costs-prompt-state-spending-cuts/

    One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.

    If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
    You’ve got the equivalent of Boris derangement syndrome when it comes to Biden.
  • Options
    NigelbNigelb Posts: 64,201
    Dura_Ace said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    US aid to Ukraine is 60/40 military/cash. So Ukraine have had about $30bn in cash. Not thinking that is the best possible use of the US taxpayers' $30bn is a legitimate position.

    Not all of the military aid is hardware, half of it is logistics (ie endless C-17 rotations), training, etc. which has to be paid for by the DoD out of current appropriations.
    Except that the majority of Congressional Republicans probably do support it.
    Just not enough to pass up an opportunity to frustrate the Administration.
  • Options
    OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 32,375
    Pulpstar said:

    Dura_Ace said:

    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Labour costs are behind some of it. Dealers have now been hollowed out to sales reptiles and lube techs with very few mechanics. Most accident damage involves bodywork which is very labour intensive to do properly.

    Additionally, if the air bags go off the interior is trashed - very labour intensive again.

    My current daily (Mk.7 GTI Clubsport) was a Class N write off due to front and rear bumper damage and airbag deployment. Probably a grand in parts to fix it but written off due to labour costs.
    Just checked, last renewal was a smidgen under £250. The most annoying part is insurers don't properly keep track of my no claims. It's 18 years (19 upcoming) I haven't claimed in, not 9 !
    Don’t they stop counting after 9? My wife are much the same and ours was considerably more than that, and when I went on comparison sites it was about as good as I could get. I did a bit of a reduction when I rang the firm and grumbled, though.
    I blame all the potholes!
  • Options

    I am not sure learning Trump had won last night is more depressing than Farage guesting at his party

    Trump = Hitler
    Farage = Unity Mitford
  • Options
    Alphabet_SoupAlphabet_Soup Posts: 2,830
    Eabhal said:

    DavidL said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    This is already a major part of the problem. Uninsured motorists have to be financed by someone when they cause damage and that is the mugs who do insure. We are already in a negative spiral where the cost of insurance is driving (hah) an increasing number to be uninsured and the cost to the insured.
    I follow a few Police Scotland accounts and it extraordinary how many they catch when they do a campaign. That and drug driving...

    My car was written off by an uninsured hit and run. Had a great experience with my insurer, but no wonder it's so expensive.
    Am I right in thinking that when someone gets nicked for drink driving and no insurance the second charge is often down to the first because policies' small print means they're invalid when a driver is over the limit. In other words, they had insurance when they left home, but not when they left the bar.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,096
    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
    How do you think we should engage with the underlying reasons why Trump is popular?
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 50,761

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.

    See those numbers in the context of, for example, the Maui fires in Hawaii last year.
    https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/11/20/hawaii-news/maui-wildfire-recovery-costs-prompt-state-spending-cuts/

    One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.

    If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
    You’ve got the equivalent of Boris derangement syndrome when it comes to Biden.
    I’m trying to watch a variety of US media, in an attempt to accurately predict the forthcoming election.

    Conservative media are sh!tting on Biden over the amount of money spent in Ukraine, when the reality is that most of the money isn’t actually new money spent at all.
  • Options
    Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 7,904
    edited January 16

    I am not sure learning Trump had won last night is more depressing than Farage guesting at his party

    It's a funny old relationship; whether it benefits RefUK I'm not sure. Nevertheless, it's something of an unequal relationship. By the end of 2024, we could have:

    Donald Trump: POTUS
    Nigel Farage: MP for Clacton, Essex, England.
  • Options
    FF43FF43 Posts: 16,096
    FF43 said:

    Andy_JS said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    This is what happens when people spend nearly 10 years refusing to engage with the underlying reasons why someone like Trump has become popular in the US.
    How do you think we should engage with the underlying reasons why Trump is popular?
    Genuine question by the way. Trump needs to be dealt with effectively.
  • Options
    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Eabhal said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    Going to reach a market failure at some point? About 1 in 20 are now uninsured, and that will only increase as prices continue to surge - the classic cycle from Econ 1A.
    Or people stop driving.
    If you're a new driver, you could be paying £2-3k annually. That's a serious disincentive to go through the bother of passing a driving test.
    It's going to destroy what's left of the rural economy - young people have yet another push factor for living in cities and towns. And given bus services have been cut by 50% since 2010... ouch.
    You could get a decent bus service by raising council tax by a lot less than £2-3k.
  • Options
    williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 49,074

    Sandpit said:

    Nigelb said:

    Sandpit said:

    Good Morning Europe. A little reminder that 80% of the Republican Party just voted for candidates who are hostile to aiding Ukraine. You might want to start getting ready for this….

    https://twitter.com/PhillipsPOBrien/status/1747124967777370468

    It’s sad that the Biden administration has discussed the Ukraine war mainly in terms of how much money has been spent on it, using totally bollocks inflated figures for what’s mainly the transfer of obsolete equipment. It’s allowed opposition to form on that basis, that this ‘money’ is much better spent domestically.

    But yes, the US is increasingly tilting towards seeing China as the biggest enemy - does Europe have what it takes to defend itself?
    Those are the accounting rules - and military aid on that scale requires Congressional budget approval.
    His opponents would be screaming if he'd seriously fudged them.

    Blaming Biden for the GIP holding Ukraine hostage over domestic policy is dumb.
    When equipment that cost $10m in 1980 is now “valued” at $100m, despite the fact that it’s obsolete and about to be mothballed at best, it doesn’t help when the administration decides to shout from the rooftops about how they’re “spending another $100m”, when they’re clearly not spending any actual money at all bar some shipping and training costs.

    See those numbers in the context of, for example, the Maui fires in Hawaii last year.
    https://www.staradvertiser.com/2023/11/20/hawaii-news/maui-wildfire-recovery-costs-prompt-state-spending-cuts/

    One can understand why the talk of tens of million dollars here and there (of actual money from federal funds), is being compared to the “$100bn spent on Ukraine” in a domestic political environment.

    If the administration hadn’t given the big-up to the hundred billion spent in Ukraine, there wouldn’t be the opposition to it that says that the $100bn would better be spent domestically.
    You’ve got the equivalent of Boris derangement syndrome when it comes to Biden.
    No, he’s just better informed about the war in Ukraine.
  • Options
    PJHPJH Posts: 571
    Dura_Ace said:

    carnforth said:

    Nigelb said:

    Average car insurance cost in UK nears £1,000 after prices rise 58%
    https://www.theguardian.com/money/2024/jan/16/average-car-insurance-cost-uk-prices-rise-inflation

    An entire article which doesn't address why. Does anyone actually know?
    Labour costs are behind some of it. Dealers have now been hollowed out to sales reptiles and lube techs with very few mechanics. Most accident damage involves bodywork which is very labour intensive to do properly.

    Additionally, if the air bags go off the interior is trashed - very labour intensive again.

    My current daily (Mk.7 GTI Clubsport) was a Class N write off due to front and rear bumper damage and airbag deployment. Probably a grand in parts to fix it but written off due to labour costs.
    And also insurers like to use main dealers for repairs, and they are a complete rip-off. When someone clipped my wing mirror a year or so ago, Ford quoted me £290 to fit a new one because apparently it comes as a whole assembly and you have to take the door off to fit a new one. In practice I found a replacement for the damaged component online for £48 including spraying it the right colour and was able to fit it myself in about 30 seconds.
This discussion has been closed.