Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
One thing I hadn't fully appreciated is just how much time Trump has spent attacking the courts and individual judges even before they started pulling him up over his crimes.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Turkey local elections 2024 - Yet again, "Strongman" Erdoğan bites the Big Weenie of defeat at the hands of opposition led by Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu of Istanbul. Who is getting just over 50% of vote, compared to just under 40% for the (national) government candidate Murat Kurum.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
Recalling the GRR bill It’s déjà vu all over again, the once enthusiastic SLab and LDs maintaining a stoic silence over their support, and the BBC helpfully not asking them about it,
Yes it reminds me a little of that. With one big difference of course - no S35 hammer so in this case we won't be denied the chance to see if the opposition turns out to be on-the-money or scaremongering.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
One thing I hadn't fully appreciated is just how much time Trump has spent attacking the courts and individual judges even before they started pulling him up over his crimes.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Well your first paragraph sums up the last forty years of UK trade policy.
It's hard to see where genuine growth comes from when we have, and are still, closing primary and tertiary industries.
The promotion of new environmental technology programmes which use domestically procured resources are perhaps a way forward. Labour proposed a £28b programme, the Conservatives "sniggled" at it so Labour took their bat and ball home.
So yes tax rises and service cuts are probably the reality.
Investment is no more a magical cure to our problems than saying abracadabra is.
I'm happy to support investment which has a positive rate of return whoever makes that investment.
So, for example, I applaud Biden's industrial investments as I think they're a worthwhile risk.
But I would caution that an investment with a negative rate of return leaves you worse of.
Everyone on a betting website should be aware of that inconvenient fact.
And ensuring investment has a positive rate of return is no easy matter - especially when governments get involved.
So Starmer and Reeves can invest as much as they want but let them be publicly clear about the consequences before they start:
A positive rate of return and more money will be available to spend on other things.
A negative rate of return and the cuts will be deeper than they would have been.
Investment is the only cure.
Now we have lost North Sea oil, cheap Chinese imports and free trade with the EU, we better think of something better than house price inflation to fund the economy.
I don't know the reality of speculating on green energy projects and infrastructure but we need to do something and that sounds worth a try to me, Slashing infrastructure projects like HS2 is shortsighted but represents the malaise of the years of EU membership. France spent it's Social Fund money on the Milau Viaduct, we spent ours on cobblestones in Cemaes Bay.
Cutting the state to balance tax cuts is just a nonsense.
SUCCESSFUL investment might be the cure.
Now if there's anyone around who can tell be the winner of the 14:35 at Chepstow or which shares to buy I'm interested.
But if such as investment goes wrong then government wont bail me out but it will do plenty if it looks like property prices might fall.
That's one reason people invest in property rather than in business.
But therein lies our problem. As a nation we don't speculate to accumulate we rely on dead certs and favourites. Hence property, and I take you back to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to demonstrate that investing in property isn't always a dead cert.
Most of the entrepreneurs in the world have a litany of failures in front and behind them.
I wonder whether history will see cancelling HS2 as a really really bad idea.
In the same way implementing the Beeching Plan was seen after 50 years as folly.
The thing is, with the constriction of supply and the favourable tax treatment, why would you NOT invest in residential property? There's no point, for the smaller investor at any rate, in rolling the dice on shares if you have enough money to buy housing and rent it out for an extortionate monthly fee.
If I, for argument's sake, won half a million on the lottery then I'd be sorely tempted to buy a flat and rent it out. You turn the tenant into a cash machine, make a handsome yield each year, and receive an almost guaranteed capital gain (and probably a very big one) if and when you have had enough and elect to sell up, because prices aren't going to do anything but keep going up over the medium to long term.
People, by and large, aren't thick. If collecting rents is probably going to get you a better return than investing in productive activity, then you'll collect rents.
If you had half a million then you could get £25k in interest just by doing nothing. If you buy a £500k flat you may get £25k in rental income but then you would have to pay estate agent fees, referencing fees, insurance costs, service charges (horror stories doing the rounds at the moment of £625/month), any maintenance to the flat or appliances in it and associated call out fees, dealing with damage to the flat, and covering any void periods or late rental payments, which are common. It is a completely illiquid investment and a flat is difficult to buy or sell due to the amount of regulation. You also get hated and blamed for every social ill by people on the internet. Prices going up? They have flatlined in large parts of the country for several years. It is a poor investment reflected in the fact that landlords are quitting the market. Now that interest rates are 4/5% it is pointless.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
Did anyone buy shares in ‘super’ a decade or so ago? Better ROI than Bitcoin
One thing I hadn't fully appreciated is just how much time Trump has spent attacking the courts and individual judges even before they started pulling him up over his crimes.
If anyone else spoke like this about the US judicial system and individual judges and cases they would have been doing porridge long ago.
How anybody can claim the judicial system is politicised against him when looking at this record is beyond me.
It seems to me the 'system' is bending over backwards so as not to trigger disorder in Magaworld. Having an army of nutjobs prepared to make trouble on his behalf gives Trump tons of gangster power. Like all the best gangsters he realizes this and exploits it to the hilt.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
I did that from memory. The actual lyrics are
The Second World War Came to an end We forgave the Germans And then we were friends Though they murdered six million In the ovens they fried The Germans now too Have God on their side
Which scans better but doesn't really address your point. But then, Bob is American.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Well your first paragraph sums up the last forty years of UK trade policy.
It's hard to see where genuine growth comes from when we have, and are still, closing primary and tertiary industries.
The promotion of new environmental technology programmes which use domestically procured resources are perhaps a way forward. Labour proposed a £28b programme, the Conservatives "sniggled" at it so Labour took their bat and ball home.
So yes tax rises and service cuts are probably the reality.
Investment is no more a magical cure to our problems than saying abracadabra is.
I'm happy to support investment which has a positive rate of return whoever makes that investment.
So, for example, I applaud Biden's industrial investments as I think they're a worthwhile risk.
But I would caution that an investment with a negative rate of return leaves you worse of.
Everyone on a betting website should be aware of that inconvenient fact.
And ensuring investment has a positive rate of return is no easy matter - especially when governments get involved.
So Starmer and Reeves can invest as much as they want but let them be publicly clear about the consequences before they start:
A positive rate of return and more money will be available to spend on other things.
A negative rate of return and the cuts will be deeper than they would have been.
Investment is the only cure.
Now we have lost North Sea oil, cheap Chinese imports and free trade with the EU, we better think of something better than house price inflation to fund the economy.
I don't know the reality of speculating on green energy projects and infrastructure but we need to do something and that sounds worth a try to me, Slashing infrastructure projects like HS2 is shortsighted but represents the malaise of the years of EU membership. France spent it's Social Fund money on the Milau Viaduct, we spent ours on cobblestones in Cemaes Bay.
Cutting the state to balance tax cuts is just a nonsense.
SUCCESSFUL investment might be the cure.
Now if there's anyone around who can tell be the winner of the 14:35 at Chepstow or which shares to buy I'm interested.
But if such as investment goes wrong then government wont bail me out but it will do plenty if it looks like property prices might fall.
That's one reason people invest in property rather than in business.
But therein lies our problem. As a nation we don't speculate to accumulate we rely on dead certs and favourites. Hence property, and I take you back to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to demonstrate that investing in property isn't always a dead cert.
Most of the entrepreneurs in the world have a litany of failures in front and behind them.
I wonder whether history will see cancelling HS2 as a really really bad idea.
In the same way implementing the Beeching Plan was seen after 50 years as folly.
The thing is, with the constriction of supply and the favourable tax treatment, why would you NOT invest in residential property? There's no point, for the smaller investor at any rate, in rolling the dice on shares if you have enough money to buy housing and rent it out for an extortionate monthly fee.
If I, for argument's sake, won half a million on the lottery then I'd be sorely tempted to buy a flat and rent it out. You turn the tenant into a cash machine, make a handsome yield each year, and receive an almost guaranteed capital gain (and probably a very big one) if and when you have had enough and elect to sell up, because prices aren't going to do anything but keep going up over the medium to long term.
People, by and large, aren't thick. If collecting rents is probably going to get you a better return than investing in productive activity, then you'll collect rents.
A 100% owned rental property is a guaranteed cash machine. As is, quite certainly, 2 at 50% owned.
It’s a version of the Dutch Disease, aka The Resource Curse.
In countries that have a resource (oil say) that provides guaranteed minimum levels of return, investment gravitates to that, and the rest of the economy is strangled by it.
See many oil producing countries and their battles to not have an economy that is 90%+ oil dominated.
The Norwegian Oil fund was setup (and structure), in large part to prevent this happening.
In the U.K. property investment has a similar function and result.
Yes you should only be able to make serious money from property if you're adding tangible value - eg building it or improving it. If just trading it or renting it out is bringing better returns (for the risk) than most businesses there's something wrong.
Owning property which brings in a steady income is what the 'polite' people in Jane Austen do.
Investing in 'trade' or business is for the 'exploiters' from Josiah Bounderby to Bradly Hardacre.
My mother and her generation bought their houses for the following reasons
1) you pay your own mortgage, not someone else’s 2) no rent man 3) at the end of 20 years you get to live in a house, free. 4) if you were careful in what you buy, and look after it, you could get your money back. If you were lucky, you might beat inflation by as much as government bonds.
I bought my first flat in 1996 - for the literal price in pounds it sold for, when built, in 1988. A housing price crash had wiped out all gains in between.
A small point - the flat was shared equity. The last portion could neither be sold, borrowed against or even charged rent on. So the flat was 60% of its nominal price - and that was all.
This was because the land had been gifted by the Crown Estate to a Housing Association under those conditions. The idea was to have a tranche of more affordable housing. The person in the Royal family who’d urged the project forward was…. Yup. Him.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
I am not a member of the Scottish Conservatives. There is no evidence that these people are either. I didn't suggest that the Scottish Conservatives should be seeking their support. Apart from that, good point.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
There were some American briefings in which they said that the U.K. under Boris was upsetting them by OK’ing and supporting deep strikes. The Storm Shadow attacks on the Black Sea fleet in port were mentioned.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
It's possible, perhaps, that LBJ uttered such a statement while he was US Senate Majority Leader in the 1950s, and working to get the Senate to pass a mostly-toothless Civil Rights Bill. As argument, maybe, against amendments to strengthen it.
(The kind of provisions that he ultimately got enacted into law in the Civil Rights act of 1964, when he was President.)
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
Did anyone buy shares in ‘super’ a decade or so ago? Better ROI than Bitcoin
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
It is in various lists of quotations LBJ is said to have made. Google the quote. Attributed to him but no further source.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
There's no persuasive citation I can find in a quick search.
I did find this: Widely attributed to Johnson, and in keeping with his reputation as a wily legislator, but no actual source found. https://wist.info/author/johnson-lyndon/
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
There's no persuasive citation I can find in a quick search.
I did find this: Widely attributed to Johnson, and in keeping with his reputation as a wily legislator, but no actual source found. https://wist.info/author/johnson-lyndon/
Yeah, I did the same googling. Only "source" for the "quote" is crapola like "Brainyquote" which is noting but clickbait.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Well your first paragraph sums up the last forty years of UK trade policy.
It's hard to see where genuine growth comes from when we have, and are still, closing primary and tertiary industries.
The promotion of new environmental technology programmes which use domestically procured resources are perhaps a way forward. Labour proposed a £28b programme, the Conservatives "sniggled" at it so Labour took their bat and ball home.
So yes tax rises and service cuts are probably the reality.
Investment is no more a magical cure to our problems than saying abracadabra is.
I'm happy to support investment which has a positive rate of return whoever makes that investment.
So, for example, I applaud Biden's industrial investments as I think they're a worthwhile risk.
But I would caution that an investment with a negative rate of return leaves you worse of.
Everyone on a betting website should be aware of that inconvenient fact.
And ensuring investment has a positive rate of return is no easy matter - especially when governments get involved.
So Starmer and Reeves can invest as much as they want but let them be publicly clear about the consequences before they start:
A positive rate of return and more money will be available to spend on other things.
A negative rate of return and the cuts will be deeper than they would have been.
Investment is the only cure.
Now we have lost North Sea oil, cheap Chinese imports and free trade with the EU, we better think of something better than house price inflation to fund the economy.
I don't know the reality of speculating on green energy projects and infrastructure but we need to do something and that sounds worth a try to me, Slashing infrastructure projects like HS2 is shortsighted but represents the malaise of the years of EU membership. France spent it's Social Fund money on the Milau Viaduct, we spent ours on cobblestones in Cemaes Bay.
Cutting the state to balance tax cuts is just a nonsense.
SUCCESSFUL investment might be the cure.
Now if there's anyone around who can tell be the winner of the 14:35 at Chepstow or which shares to buy I'm interested.
But if such as investment goes wrong then government wont bail me out but it will do plenty if it looks like property prices might fall.
That's one reason people invest in property rather than in business.
But therein lies our problem. As a nation we don't speculate to accumulate we rely on dead certs and favourites. Hence property, and I take you back to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to demonstrate that investing in property isn't always a dead cert.
Most of the entrepreneurs in the world have a litany of failures in front and behind them.
I wonder whether history will see cancelling HS2 as a really really bad idea.
In the same way implementing the Beeching Plan was seen after 50 years as folly.
The thing is, with the constriction of supply and the favourable tax treatment, why would you NOT invest in residential property? There's no point, for the smaller investor at any rate, in rolling the dice on shares if you have enough money to buy housing and rent it out for an extortionate monthly fee.
If I, for argument's sake, won half a million on the lottery then I'd be sorely tempted to buy a flat and rent it out. You turn the tenant into a cash machine, make a handsome yield each year, and receive an almost guaranteed capital gain (and probably a very big one) if and when you have had enough and elect to sell up, because prices aren't going to do anything but keep going up over the medium to long term.
People, by and large, aren't thick. If collecting rents is probably going to get you a better return than investing in productive activity, then you'll collect rents.
A 100% owned rental property is a guaranteed cash machine. As is, quite certainly, 2 at 50% owned.
It’s a version of the Dutch Disease, aka The Resource Curse.
In countries that have a resource (oil say) that provides guaranteed minimum levels of return, investment gravitates to that, and the rest of the economy is strangled by it.
See many oil producing countries and their battles to not have an economy that is 90%+ oil dominated.
The Norwegian Oil fund was setup (and structure), in large part to prevent this happening.
In the U.K. property investment has a similar function and result.
Yes you should only be able to make serious money from property if you're adding tangible value - eg building it or improving it. If just trading it or renting it out is bringing better returns (for the risk) than most businesses there's something wrong.
Owning property which brings in a steady income is what the 'polite' people in Jane Austen do.
Investing in 'trade' or business is for the 'exploiters' from Josiah Bounderby to Bradly Hardacre.
My mother and her generation bought their houses for the following reasons
1) you pay your own mortgage, not someone else’s 2) no rent man 3) at the end of 20 years you get to live in a house, free. 4) if you were careful in what you buy, and look after it, you could get your money back. If you were lucky, you might beat inflation by as much as government bonds.
I bought my first flat in 1996 - for the literal price in pounds it sold for, when built, in 1988. A housing price crash had wiped out all gains in between.
A small point - the flat was shared equity. The last portion could neither be sold, borrowed against or even charged rent on. So the flat was 60% of its nominal price - and that was all.
This was because the land had been gifted by the Crown Estate to a Housing Association under those conditions. The idea was to have a tranche of more affordable housing. The person in the Royal family who’d urged the project forward was…. Yup. Him.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
There's no persuasive citation I can find in a quick search.
I did find this: Widely attributed to Johnson, and in keeping with his reputation as a wily legislator, but no actual source found. https://wist.info/author/johnson-lyndon/
Yeah, I did the same googling. Only "source" for the "quote" is crapola like "Brainyquote" which is noting but clickbait.
My link has good sources for other LBJ quotes, so they've made some kind of effort.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
It is in various lists of quotations LBJ is said to have made. Google the quote. Attributed to him but no further source.
Exactly my point. Source is . . . no source except other non-sources.
UNLESS and UNTIL it get tracked down to a REAL source.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
It is in various lists of quotations LBJ is said to have made. Google the quote. Attributed to him but no further source.
Exactly my point. Source is . . . no source except other non-sources.
UNLESS and UNTIL it get tracked down to a REAL source.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
I am not a member of the Scottish Conservatives. There is no evidence that these people are either. I didn't suggest that the Scottish Conservatives should be seeking their support. Apart from that, good point.
I didn’t suggest they were Scottish Conservatives, rather they were supporters of their ‘valyoos’. In addition I’d surmise like yersel they’re likely to have voted for them, repeatedly. Apart from that, good rebuttal.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Well your first paragraph sums up the last forty years of UK trade policy.
It's hard to see where genuine growth comes from when we have, and are still, closing primary and tertiary industries.
The promotion of new environmental technology programmes which use domestically procured resources are perhaps a way forward. Labour proposed a £28b programme, the Conservatives "sniggled" at it so Labour took their bat and ball home.
So yes tax rises and service cuts are probably the reality.
Investment is no more a magical cure to our problems than saying abracadabra is.
I'm happy to support investment which has a positive rate of return whoever makes that investment.
So, for example, I applaud Biden's industrial investments as I think they're a worthwhile risk.
But I would caution that an investment with a negative rate of return leaves you worse of.
Everyone on a betting website should be aware of that inconvenient fact.
And ensuring investment has a positive rate of return is no easy matter - especially when governments get involved.
So Starmer and Reeves can invest as much as they want but let them be publicly clear about the consequences before they start:
A positive rate of return and more money will be available to spend on other things.
A negative rate of return and the cuts will be deeper than they would have been.
Investment is the only cure.
Now we have lost North Sea oil, cheap Chinese imports and free trade with the EU, we better think of something better than house price inflation to fund the economy.
I don't know the reality of speculating on green energy projects and infrastructure but we need to do something and that sounds worth a try to me, Slashing infrastructure projects like HS2 is shortsighted but represents the malaise of the years of EU membership. France spent it's Social Fund money on the Milau Viaduct, we spent ours on cobblestones in Cemaes Bay.
Cutting the state to balance tax cuts is just a nonsense.
SUCCESSFUL investment might be the cure.
Now if there's anyone around who can tell be the winner of the 14:35 at Chepstow or which shares to buy I'm interested.
But if such as investment goes wrong then government wont bail me out but it will do plenty if it looks like property prices might fall.
That's one reason people invest in property rather than in business.
But therein lies our problem. As a nation we don't speculate to accumulate we rely on dead certs and favourites. Hence property, and I take you back to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to demonstrate that investing in property isn't always a dead cert.
Most of the entrepreneurs in the world have a litany of failures in front and behind them.
I wonder whether history will see cancelling HS2 as a really really bad idea.
In the same way implementing the Beeching Plan was seen after 50 years as folly.
The thing is, with the constriction of supply and the favourable tax treatment, why would you NOT invest in residential property? There's no point, for the smaller investor at any rate, in rolling the dice on shares if you have enough money to buy housing and rent it out for an extortionate monthly fee.
If I, for argument's sake, won half a million on the lottery then I'd be sorely tempted to buy a flat and rent it out. You turn the tenant into a cash machine, make a handsome yield each year, and receive an almost guaranteed capital gain (and probably a very big one) if and when you have had enough and elect to sell up, because prices aren't going to do anything but keep going up over the medium to long term.
People, by and large, aren't thick. If collecting rents is probably going to get you a better return than investing in productive activity, then you'll collect rents.
A 100% owned rental property is a guaranteed cash machine. As is, quite certainly, 2 at 50% owned.
It’s a version of the Dutch Disease, aka The Resource Curse.
In countries that have a resource (oil say) that provides guaranteed minimum levels of return, investment gravitates to that, and the rest of the economy is strangled by it.
See many oil producing countries and their battles to not have an economy that is 90%+ oil dominated.
The Norwegian Oil fund was setup (and structure), in large part to prevent this happening.
In the U.K. property investment has a similar function and result.
Yes you should only be able to make serious money from property if you're adding tangible value - eg building it or improving it. If just trading it or renting it out is bringing better returns (for the risk) than most businesses there's something wrong.
Owning property which brings in a steady income is what the 'polite' people in Jane Austen do.
Investing in 'trade' or business is for the 'exploiters' from Josiah Bounderby to Bradly Hardacre.
My mother and her generation bought their houses for the following reasons
1) you pay your own mortgage, not someone else’s 2) no rent man 3) at the end of 20 years you get to live in a house, free. 4) if you were careful in what you buy, and look after it, you could get your money back. If you were lucky, you might beat inflation by as much as government bonds.
I bought my first flat in 1996 - for the literal price in pounds it sold for, when built, in 1988. A housing price crash had wiped out all gains in between.
A small point - the flat was shared equity. The last portion could neither be sold, borrowed against or even charged rent on. So the flat was 60% of its nominal price - and that was all.
This was because the land had been gifted by the Crown Estate to a Housing Association under those conditions. The idea was to have a tranche of more affordable housing. The person in the Royal family who’d urged the project forward was…. Yup. Him.
Prince Andrew- wow!
Ha!
Interesting that someone in the mid 80s saw housing prices as a potential problem, isn’t it?
The flats were marketed to locals, who were being priced out of the area, initially.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
That in turn has prompted calls this morning from two senior national Labour people promising help. So much in politics is about snowball effects.
Two initial thoughts come to mind with the Labour bar charts for Didcot:
a) As has been discussed here many of the projections from this poll are clearly nonsense eg Guildford, Wokingham, etc.
b) If people believe that bar charts then it will encourage soft Tories to vote LD to keep Labour out if they believe the chart that Labour are in the lead and the Tories 3rd.
Current (Survation/BestforBritain) figures do have Tories close behind Labour, with LibDems third on 17%. But I've literally never canvassed anyone in the last year (which was mostly in deep blue Godalming) who said they were scared at the thought of a Starmer government. The LibDems there have lots of positive support, and literally none of it to my eyes is to keep Labour out.
As for nonsense projections, drastic change always looks like nonsense till it happens. Would you have predicted Tories winning Ashfield, or Labour winning Canterbury? What MRP picks up is a basic leaning of the demographic to the various parties. Whether it translates into votes depends on whether the parties really go for it. That happens a lot in by-elections (e.g. Mid-Beds) but not usually in GEs. My article is essentially arguing that the current climate makes it right to go for it in seats we don't usually win.
Although the commentators will not have been aware (although I think both Ashfield and Canterbury were discussed prior to the election) I'm sure the parties were aware. When the LDs won Guildford I remember prior to that a BBC commentator scoffed at the suggestion that the LDs might win it, assuming it was true blue. We had other ideas.
I have no doubt that Labour will win seats from 3rd place and many will appear to be surprises (although I suspect not to those in the know), however that doesn't detract from the fact that extrapolating these MRP polls in some places is very dubious.
Look at @Andy_Cooke post for two examples for two different MTP polls:
C 27, LD 47, L 17 C 23, LD 32, L 31
C 31, LD 32, L 24 C 33, LD 17, L 38
These are not margin of error differences. These are huge difference. I assume Andy has his figures right.
And then there are other places like Guildford and Wokingham which plainly don't smell right.
The surge in the Labour vote, the collapse in the Conservative vote and the stagnation in the Lib Dem vote means there are going to be some surprise Labour victories from 3rd and Wantage and Didcot might be one of them and you are there on the ground to know, but the extrapolation of these MRP polls just looks nuts for some places and the difference in the results between polls can't be explained by statistical error (I believe).
PS Nobody is voting LD to keep Labour out in Godalming. It is a LD/Tory fight. But if you put a poll out in a Tory seat showing Labour ahead of the Tories and the LDs in a close 2nd and Tories 3rd then you will get unhappy Tories voting LD to stop Labour wouldn't you.
My guess is the best place to try to verify the alleged LBJ quote, is somewhere in Robert Caro's voluminous, multi-volume biography of Lyndon Johnson - a work still in progress.
Suggest starting with "Master of the Senate" which chronicles LBJ's years as Majority Leader.
Unfortunately, yours truly does NOT have time at present to do as I've just suggested.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
NO ACTUAL CITATION GIVEN. IMHO just typical internet BS.
Frankly, would expect a lawyer to have a better notion of what a "citation" really is. As in giving chapter & verse!
I do feel duly admonished. I have found the quote in various places, all attributing it to LBJ, but never in context.
The Court of PB Punditry excuses your most uncharacteristic lapse!
IF you REALLY want to immerse yourself in a cornucopia of crappola, then take a dive into the vast underworld of FAKE quotations "attributed" to Abraham Lincoln!
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
NO ACTUAL CITATION GIVEN. IMHO just typical internet BS.
Frankly, would expect a lawyer to have a better notion of what a "citation" really is. As in giving chapter & verse!
I do feel duly admonished. I have found the quote in various places, all attributing it to LBJ, but never in context.
The Court of PB Punditry excuses your most uncharacteristic lapse!
IF you REALLY want to immerse yourself in a cornucopia of crappola, then take a dive into the vast underworld of FAKE quotations "attributed" to Abraham Lincoln!
“93% of quotations attributed to me are fake” - Abe Lincoln, on Tik Tok
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
NO ACTUAL CITATION GIVEN. IMHO just typical internet BS.
Frankly, would expect a lawyer to have a better notion of what a "citation" really is. As in giving chapter & verse!
I do feel duly admonished. I have found the quote in various places, all attributing it to LBJ, but never in context.
The Court of PB Punditry excuses your most uncharacteristic lapse!
IF you REALLY want to immerse yourself in a cornucopia of crappola, then take a dive into the vast underworld of FAKE quotations "attributed" to Abraham Lincoln!
I think my favourite LBJ is "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: 'President Can't Swim.'"
It rather brilliantly describes the state that Sunak has got himself into now. Even when he is right people will not want to give him any credit.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
It is in various lists of quotations LBJ is said to have made. Google the quote. Attributed to him but no further source.
Exactly my point. Source is . . . no source except other non-sources.
UNLESS and UNTIL it get tracked down to a REAL source.
Before this thread ends - for what it's worth I (mostly) concur with Cyclefree's analysis - want to ask this question:
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
I found it ages ago. I've used it before in another header. I'll see if I can dig out the details.
NO ACTUAL CITATION GIVEN. IMHO just typical internet BS.
Frankly, would expect a lawyer to have a better notion of what a "citation" really is. As in giving chapter & verse!
I do feel duly admonished. I have found the quote in various places, all attributing it to LBJ, but never in context.
The Court of PB Punditry excuses your most uncharacteristic lapse!
IF you REALLY want to immerse yourself in a cornucopia of crappola, then take a dive into the vast underworld of FAKE quotations "attributed" to Abraham Lincoln!
I think my favourite LBJ is "If one morning I walked on top of the water across the Potomac River, the headline that afternoon would read: 'President Can't Swim.'"
It rather brilliantly describes the state that Sunak has got himself into now. Even when he is right people will not want to give him any credit.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
I am not a member of the Scottish Conservatives. There is no evidence that these people are either. I didn't suggest that the Scottish Conservatives should be seeking their support. Apart from that, good point.
I didn’t suggest they were Scottish Conservatives, rather they were supporters of their ‘valyoos’. In addition I’d surmise like yersel they’re likely to have voted for them, repeatedly. Apart from that, good rebuttal.
The Scottish media won’t attribute support of any controversial policies to Labour. The Scottish media, particularly the BBC, the Daily Record and the Herald, are in bed with Scottish Labour. This has often been covert, as in keeping quiet about Labour’s support for GRR and the Hate Crime bill. It will become increasingly overt as the GE approaches, and increasingly so as the next Scottish election approaches. It’s what they have always done.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
"Absolutely" has completely replaced "Yes" in affirmative answers to interview questions
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
"Absolutely" has completely replaced "Yes" in affirmative answers to interview questions
"Reached out to" drives me scatty. It's basically "emailed but didn't chase up".
Some little time ago, there was an article in the Guardian (I think) decrying a government scheme to provide VC type support to startups. The scheme isn't actually VC for startups. But the article went on about the fact that only 30% (or similar) of the companies hadn't failed in a couple of years.
Entirely missing the fact that if Sunak had created a scheme for getting 30% success rate in VC, then he is a genius and will be making more money than Elon Musk.
The problem is the expectation of 100% success and using any means to get it. Which guarantees, due to the paradoxes of life, 100% failure.
In discussing DARPA like schemes with politicians, they *hate* the idea of investing seed money in 1,000s of ideas. They want the to pick the "right" ideas. That align with "policy objectives". And then invest large sums to "make sure it works".
So they want the DARPA like success - with 100% opposite method to DARPA.
This is a good example of why there is not a hope in hell of Labour or the Tories solving the productivity problem, as UK politics will not allow the risk taking that might work — we can't just become German, we will need to try a lot of ideas — and will instead demand the certainty that won't work (the becoming German).
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Yes, there is a danger with free trade that production moves to somewhere with lower standards (environmental or other). Indeed, differing standards are often the bigger issue than traditional concerns over tariffs. A sensible approach, I suggest, is to negotiate free trade within a structure of agreed, shared standards.
Taxing multinational business is taxing the rich, but it’s usually talking other countries’ rich!
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
Source?
Oh, totally made up in ChatGPT.
But, you must admit, it was pretty convincing.
Psst, careful, there's a ban on talking about ai in here
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Well your first paragraph sums up the last forty years of UK trade policy.
It's hard to see where genuine growth comes from when we have, and are still, closing primary and tertiary industries.
The promotion of new environmental technology programmes which use domestically procured resources are perhaps a way forward. Labour proposed a £28b programme, the Conservatives "sniggled" at it so Labour took their bat and ball home.
So yes tax rises and service cuts are probably the reality.
Investment is no more a magical cure to our problems than saying abracadabra is.
I'm happy to support investment which has a positive rate of return whoever makes that investment.
So, for example, I applaud Biden's industrial investments as I think they're a worthwhile risk.
But I would caution that an investment with a negative rate of return leaves you worse of.
Everyone on a betting website should be aware of that inconvenient fact.
And ensuring investment has a positive rate of return is no easy matter - especially when governments get involved.
So Starmer and Reeves can invest as much as they want but let them be publicly clear about the consequences before they start:
A positive rate of return and more money will be available to spend on other things.
A negative rate of return and the cuts will be deeper than they would have been.
Investment is the only cure.
Now we have lost North Sea oil, cheap Chinese imports and free trade with the EU, we better think of something better than house price inflation to fund the economy.
I don't know the reality of speculating on green energy projects and infrastructure but we need to do something and that sounds worth a try to me, Slashing infrastructure projects like HS2 is shortsighted but represents the malaise of the years of EU membership. France spent it's Social Fund money on the Milau Viaduct, we spent ours on cobblestones in Cemaes Bay.
Cutting the state to balance tax cuts is just a nonsense.
SUCCESSFUL investment might be the cure.
Now if there's anyone around who can tell be the winner of the 14:35 at Chepstow or which shares to buy I'm interested.
But if such as investment goes wrong then government wont bail me out but it will do plenty if it looks like property prices might fall.
That's one reason people invest in property rather than in business.
But therein lies our problem. As a nation we don't speculate to accumulate we rely on dead certs and favourites. Hence property, and I take you back to Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae to demonstrate that investing in property isn't always a dead cert.
Most of the entrepreneurs in the world have a litany of failures in front and behind them.
I wonder whether history will see cancelling HS2 as a really really bad idea.
In the same way implementing the Beeching Plan was seen after 50 years as folly.
The thing is, with the constriction of supply and the favourable tax treatment, why would you NOT invest in residential property? There's no point, for the smaller investor at any rate, in rolling the dice on shares if you have enough money to buy housing and rent it out for an extortionate monthly fee.
If I, for argument's sake, won half a million on the lottery then I'd be sorely tempted to buy a flat and rent it out. You turn the tenant into a cash machine, make a handsome yield each year, and receive an almost guaranteed capital gain (and probably a very big one) if and when you have had enough and elect to sell up, because prices aren't going to do anything but keep going up over the medium to long term.
People, by and large, aren't thick. If collecting rents is probably going to get you a better return than investing in productive activity, then you'll collect rents.
If you had half a million then you could get £25k in interest just by doing nothing. If you buy a £500k flat you may get £25k in rental income but then you would have to pay estate agent fees, referencing fees, insurance costs, service charges (horror stories doing the rounds at the moment of £625/month), any maintenance to the flat or appliances in it and associated call out fees, dealing with damage to the flat, and covering any void periods or late rental payments, which are common. It is a completely illiquid investment and a flat is difficult to buy or sell due to the amount of regulation. You also get hated and blamed for every social ill by people on the internet. Prices going up? They have flatlined in large parts of the country for several years. It is a poor investment reflected in the fact that landlords are quitting the market. Now that interest rates are 4/5% it is pointless.
There's some truth in this. You'd probably be better off buying a house and renting that out.
Banks don't pay interest at BoE rate (screwing savers is a major source of profitability for them) and interest rates will be coming back down again soon enough in any case. House prices are already on their way back up again, and further increases are inevitable. If building continues to lag the relentless pace of population growth then scarcity will force them up. Straightforward supply and demand.
Some landlords have been forced to sell, but that'll mainly be down to the rising cost of servicing a BTL mortgage, and this puts a further stranglehold on supply which presumably helps to explain why rents have taken off like a rocket over the last couple of years. If you can buy outright then you'd have to work pretty hard not to turn a profit.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
I am not a member of the Scottish Conservatives. There is no evidence that these people are either. I didn't suggest that the Scottish Conservatives should be seeking their support. Apart from that, good point.
I didn’t suggest they were Scottish Conservatives, rather they were supporters of their ‘valyoos’. In addition I’d surmise like yersel they’re likely to have voted for them, repeatedly. Apart from that, good rebuttal.
The Scottish media won’t attribute support of any controversial policies to Labour. The Scottish media, particularly the BBC, the Daily Record and the Herald, are in bed with Scottish Labour. This has often been covert, as in keeping quiet about Labour’s support for GRR and the Hate Crime bill. It will become increasingly overt as the GE approaches, and increasingly so as the next Scottish election approaches. It’s what they have always done.
The Record did go through a phase when they made small attempts to be even handed (possibly discomfited by Corbyn) but they’ve gone back to full blown Starmer stans. I think they want to be able to say it’s the Record wot won it, in Scotland anyway.
On Conhome a post saying Rishi will step down after the locals to be replaced by Mogg. April fool....but with the Tories you never quite know....
Nah. JRM is a fool every month of the year.
(Yes, I know he's made squillions. But as he would no doubt put it, for what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? And a fool can still be successful and a successful fool is still a fool.)
Yet he’s right about Shamima Begums citizenship and right about letting Thames Water fall and the shareholders take the hit.
So he's right as often as the average stopped clock?
Sorry, I’m forgetting the PB rule. All Tories are wrong uns and labour can do no wrong 👍
As balanced as Bart’s view on the Israel Gaza conflict.
Oh, please. I see there's plenty of room in the ditch for you and Rishi.
JRM is right on Thames Water, no argument, but then a broken clock is correct twice a day. The truth is the privatisation regime put in place by the Conservatives has brought us to this point and I don't hear JRM criticising that.
A country that continually lives beyond its means inevitably sees more and more of its assets bought by foreigners in exchange for current goods and services.
Those assets sold to foreigners can include businesses as well as government bonds, Mayfair mansions and football clubs.
I don't disagree and in a free market that's one of the consequences. I recall the Thatcher Government was enthusiastic about the trading aspects of the Single European Act and indeed free marketers should support the four freedoms.
The problem is economic liberalism bumps up against cultual protectionism - many would prefer to buy British from British owned companies though we all know if the quality comes from abroad, we'll buy the import every time.
That isn't the end of cultural protectionism - the free market in goods and services is one thing but the free market in people is something else. People have always moved to where the money is and it was an inevitable consequence of freedom of movement people from poorer parts of Europe would move to the richer parts. There's economic sense in that just as there is for richer people in the north of Europe to move to the sunnier climes of the south bringing their capital to invigorate the local economies.
As to "living beyond its means", again, I don't disagree but where do you start in terms of reducing the deficit and returning to a balanced budget? Some on the Conservative side actively supported borrowing at low interest rates (thougn that's kicking an ever bigger can down the road) but how do you bring the public finances back?
Do we cut spending, raise taxes or both? What do we cut - apparently health, welfare and defence are off limits (not sure why) and we can't raise taxes without howls of anguish? Is it time for Land Value Taxation or do we continue to tax consumption?
The rich and consumers will have to pay more tax. The poor and old will have to receive less. The workers will have to work longer and increase their productivity.
The proportions of pain between the various groups will be where the debate is but there will be many unhappy whatever the outcome.
As to Thatcher and the development of the single market that was a time when the UK ran a trade surplus, had net emigration and the single market was a much smaller group of countries with fewer economic differences between them.
How she would have viewed the larger, more varied and more chaotic current global economy I don't know.
There are other approaches you’ve not considered. We could grow the economy. For example, let’s try to remove frictions in trade. More free trade will be a boost.
Large multinationals have developed many ways of avoiding tax. Let’s target those, which will probably require multinational collaboration.
More free trade can also mean that production in this country is replaced by cheaper imports from countries which have lower worker earnings and fewer environmental regulations.
Taxing multinational business more comes under 'the rich and consumers will have to pay more tax' heading.
One of the mysteries of recent decades was the way British governments always supported Ireland's low corporation tax rates - possibly a wish to emulate it.
Anyway the rate of corporation tax has now been increased to 25% - a correct decision IMO.
Yes, there is a danger with free trade that production moves to somewhere with lower standards (environmental or other). Indeed, differing standards are often the bigger issue than traditional concerns over tariffs. A sensible approach, I suggest, is to negotiate free trade within a structure of agreed, shared standards.
Taxing multinational business is taxing the rich, but it’s usually talking other countries’ rich!
I would, however, point out that the country in the world with the strictest environmental legislation also has one of the world's largest trade surpluses. (It also has the world's most overvalued currency.)
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
Source?
Oh, totally made up in ChatGPT.
But, you must admit, it was pretty convincing.
Took away first "like" for fakery. BUT gave it back here, for honesty!
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
I am surprised you haven't commented on the candidates's respective Easter messages posted here earlier. One candidate calm, measured and reassuring, the other self absorbed, angry and in capital letters.
I think they’re going for the one state and Gaza’s in a right fuckin state solution.
Given the composition of the Israeli Government, they'd probably rather like to expel everyone left alive in Gaza into Egypt and then repopulate it with settlers. Probably the only thing that's stalling the long-awaited assault on Rafah is the presence of a Democrat in the White House.
This hate law is a good opportunity for the Scottish Tories I'd say - Labour is unlikely to mount a full-throated campaign against this abomination of a law, so that leaves the Tories mopping up anyone who doesn't want to live in a George Orwell book.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
I am surprised you haven't commented on the candidates's respective Easter messages posted here earlier. One candidate calm, measured and reassuring, the other self absorbed, angry and in capital letters.
Trump can NOT even pretend to be a Christian, even on Easter.
Yet he's apparently appointed himself God-Botherer General.
Perhaps he should get someone to read to him from one of his personally-defaced Bibles?
“Pendle Council has held two debates on Gaza with the most recent in March. That included a fresh call for peace, humanitarian aid, a political solution for Israel and Palestinian states and a proposed 'Homes for Palestinians' scheme similar to UK help for Ukrainians.”
Why? None of these things are remotely in the control of Pendle council. I’d rather my councillors focus on things they do have control over.
How to do the morally wrong thing, and damage your arms industry in the process:
"Production of Taurus missiles has been halted in Germany due to a lack of orders, - DW.
"The defense industry is not allowed to produce goods without orders, and there are none," said Thomas Gottschild, a head of the German subsidiary of the MBDA consortium.
He emphasized that restarting production would require suppliers to retool and secure necessary materials."
If you cast you mind back 85 years there were reasons why there were checks and balances put on German munitions activities after the war.
Many of which were later removed (e.g. not being allowed to build tanks AIUI). And in that case, why do they even bother having an arms industry that exports?
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
The second world war boys, came to an end. We forgave the Germans and now we are friends. Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried, The Germans now too have God on their side.
Just like the word "brilliant" is being replaced by the word "awesome", the word "also" has been displaced by "too". Which is a pity because that poem would scan better with it.
I have not noticed either of those examples of linguistic depravity.
“Pendle Council has held two debates on Gaza with the most recent in March. That included a fresh call for peace, humanitarian aid, a political solution for Israel and Palestinian states and a proposed 'Homes for Palestinians' scheme similar to UK help for Ukrainians.”
Why? None of these things are remotely in the control of Pendle council. I’d rather my councillors focus on things they do have control over.
You would think Pendle Council would be pleased that Gaza now looks more like Nelson and Colne.
“Pendle Council has held two debates on Gaza with the most recent in March. That included a fresh call for peace, humanitarian aid, a political solution for Israel and Palestinian states and a proposed 'Homes for Palestinians' scheme similar to UK help for Ukrainians.”
Why? None of these things are remotely in the control of Pendle council. I’d rather my councillors focus on things they do have control over.
Yup. I want my council to empty my bins and sort the potholes. Not drone on about bloody Gaza.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
“Pendle Council has held two debates on Gaza with the most recent in March. That included a fresh call for peace, humanitarian aid, a political solution for Israel and Palestinian states and a proposed 'Homes for Palestinians' scheme similar to UK help for Ukrainians.”
Why? None of these things are remotely in the control of Pendle council. I’d rather my councillors focus on things they do have control over.
Yup. I want my council to empty my bins and sort the potholes. Not drone on about bloody Gaza.
It does help hamstring Starmer and offer opportunity for Rishi though which should float your boat.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
Who is regarding support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus year of respectability?
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
Do you not think the dynamic changed in February 2022? Perhaps it should have in 2014 so yes you have a point, Obama dropped the ball, but it didn't and then Trump spent four years blowing smoke up Putin's rear end.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
Who is regarding support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus year of respectability?
See @SeaShantyIrish2's comment above about Boris Johnson having "(just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama" in contrast with "Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPer" who are "too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden".
Not a Scottish lawyer, so not getting involved; but reading the opinion (does the word 'opine' ever arise non-ironically other than from Scottish lawyers?) suggests that the act itself is, with regard to convictions, reasonably harmless as long as Roddy Dunlop is your lawyer.
(But the greater substance of the criticism of this bad act is the 'chilling' effect on ordinary people who will be rendered doubtful in expressing views, and in the keeping of records by police of non-criminal activity in a world where no-one will trust what use will be made of them.)
I think we can rely on Wings Over Scotland and others to test all this out in court.
Welcome to the world of consultancy. We opine every day.
Opining is important. It makes it clear that you are not telling a client what they should do. And won't end up in court when things go pear shaped for them.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
I am surprised you haven't commented on the candidates's respective Easter messages posted here earlier. One candidate calm, measured and reassuring, the other self absorbed, angry and in capital letters.
Trump can NOT even pretend to be a Christian, even on Easter.
Yet he's apparently appointed himself God-Botherer General.
Perhaps he should get someone to read to him from one of his personally-defaced Bibles?
The strange relationship that exists in America with regards to Christianity surely must implode at some point. I get it even less than I understand the inclination of medieval peasants financing the decoration of a church with gold.
Whatever one might say about Islam - at least their nutters are just normally crazy.
Betting question - will Jeffrey Donalson MP (for now) be leaving Parliament BEFORE the next general election?
AND will this help deliver his Lagan Valley seat to Alliance, either in by-election or the GE?
I doubt he will as he denies the charges and resignation would be seen by some as an admission of wrongdoing. The timelines for a General Election and for a criminal case probably mean he will see out his term. You'd assume he just can't fight a General Election with serious criminal charges hanging over him, although people have (Thorpe lost in 1979, most famously perhaps).
It's possible his Alliance opponent, Sorcha Eastwood, wouldn't particularly welcome a by-election as I understand her husband is seriously ill, although I haven't heard the latest on that.
Donaldson fairly easily topped the poll in the Assembly elections in 2022, so you'd surely expect the fact that he'll either be replaced or simply be a hugely diminished figure will help the Alliance.
Robbie Butler of the UUP (who was also Parliamentary candidate in 2019) extremely narrowly beat Eastwood to second place on first prefs in the same Assembly elections, but his running mate was absolutely nowhere so the strategy was clearly to get him elected whereas the Alliance tried and got both Eastwood and her running mate over the line. So I doubt UUP will come into it.
Reading this disc ussion, one would have no idea at all that the Bill was finally passed by 82 to 32 with four abstentions to pass the Hate Crime and Public Order Bill, under a minority SNP administration, or that Labour and the LDs as well as SGs were strong supporters.
You're right of course. The Scottish Tories should be getting a lot more credit for opposing this nonsense, as they should with their opposition to the Gender reform Bill, as they should for the opposition to the Deposit recovery Scheme, etc etc. But they don't. Meanwhile Scottish Labour really don't seem to understand what opposition is about and just hang around hopefully waiting for their turn to come again.
Still, I’m sure the guys hangin aboot outside Holyrood today are more than willing to give credit to the SCons.
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
Not sure what you think that these people have to do with the Scottish Conservatives.
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
As you suggest you SCons can’t be too picky, gather ye rosebuds of support while and where ye may.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
At least Boris Johnson had (just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
Obama who was notably weak on Putin?
Yes, Obama was weak on Putin.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But to regard support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus test of respectability while crusading against 'Putinism' looks like cynical partisan posturing.
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
Who is regarding support for Obama over McCain or Romney as a litmus year of respectability?
See @SeaShantyIrish2's comment above about Boris Johnson having "(just) enough brains to pretend to support Barack Obama" in contrast with "Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPer" who are "too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden".
I think you might be reading too much into this.
Go back and read the threads from 2012 and 2008: there was plenty of respect for McCain and Romney on these boards.
Remember when McCain called Obama a patriot? That's what we've lost. That's what we have to get back.
You know, I hate this. I really wish it wasn't happening. But what do you do when Hamas using its governing power to integrate all of its defence structures into the key infrastructure of their people knowing it is a win win for them. If Israel leaves these bases intact that's a win and if they don't, that's a win too. Because, let's face it Hamas doesn't give a flying f*** about its own people.
Do you really think this is still a military operation?
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
Well yes - quite - except that the SNP are clearly not liberals. This is nothing short of an attack on liberalism, as is 'woke' in general (though I hate using that term).
The Conservatives should go for the jugular on this - it mocks our liberal democratic system.
I've learned today that the LibDems supported this - after a lifetime of voting for them I'll never do so again.
Comments
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/his-own-words-presidents-attacks-courts
If anyone else spoke like this about the US judicial system and individual judges and cases they would have been doing porridge long ago.
How anybody can claim the judicial system is politicised against him when looking at this record is beyond me.
Scholz refused.
Occasionally I wonder if he's a Russian agent of influence.
https://www.euronews.com/2024/03/06/germanys-olaf-scholz-has-become-a-major-problem-for-ukraine
A question for the ages, where ARE the women without penises of Scotland? Are they like the Entwives, lost in the mists of time and legend?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Istanbul_mayoral_election
NOTE that Erdoğan's apparatchik Kurum bears an uncanny resemblance to Alfred E. Neuman of Madd Magazine.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mad30.jpg
And I don't even understand your question. Nice LOTR reference though.
The WW2 excuse is one used to stop Germany doing the right thing now. Instead, they are helping fascism.
(Although TBF, the German government have done a lot of good wrt Ukraine, after a particularly rocky start. The Taurus missile situation, and the stoopid excuses given for it, are undoing some of that.)
INSTEAD, just ADD to the fines he's gotta pay - exponentially.
ADDENDUM - With interest accruing hourly.
https://www1.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2023/01/29/the-intermarium/
Uralmashzavod is a machine-building enterprise in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It is involved in Russian defense industry."
https://twitter.com/Gerashchenko_en/status/1774737975231778876
We forgave the Germans and now we are friends.
Though they murdered six million, in their ovens they fried,
The Germans now too have God on their side.
If you buy a £500k flat you may get £25k in rental income but then you would have to pay estate agent fees, referencing fees, insurance costs, service charges (horror stories doing the rounds at the moment of £625/month), any maintenance to the flat or appliances in it and associated call out fees, dealing with damage to the flat, and covering any void periods or late rental payments, which are common. It is a completely illiquid investment and a flat is difficult to buy or sell due to the amount of regulation.
You also get hated and blamed for every social ill by people on the internet.
Prices going up? They have flatlined in large parts of the country for several years.
It is a poor investment reflected in the fact that landlords are quitting the market. Now that interest rates are 4/5% it is pointless.
What is the source (if any) for the quotation attributed to Lyndon B. Johnson?
Seeing as how the approach he (allegedly) advocated in the (alleged) quote, is NOT in accord with LBJ's approach to FDR's New Deal, nor with his own Great Society.
It’s not my question, it’s on the placard of one of the protestors against the Hate Crime act (and supporter of Trump by the look of it).
The Second World War
Came to an end
We forgave the Germans
And then we were friends
Though they murdered six million
In the ovens they fried
The Germans now too
Have God on their side
Which scans better but doesn't really address your point. But then, Bob is American.
Rishi Sunak and his fellow CUPers are too stupid to pretend to support Joe Biden. Instead, busy dogwhistling their admiration for (and imitation of) their TRUE role model = Donald Trump.
1) you pay your own mortgage, not someone else’s
2) no rent man
3) at the end of 20 years you get to live in a house, free.
4) if you were careful in what you buy, and look after it, you could get your money back. If you were lucky, you might beat inflation by as much as government bonds.
I bought my first flat in 1996 - for the literal price in pounds it sold for, when built, in 1988. A housing price crash had wiped out all gains in between.
A small point - the flat was shared equity. The last portion could neither be sold, borrowed against or even charged rent on. So the flat was 60% of its nominal price - and that was all.
This was because the land had been gifted by the Crown Estate to a Housing Association under those conditions. The idea was to have a tranche of more affordable housing. The person in the Royal family who’d urged the project forward was…. Yup. Him.
(The kind of provisions that he ultimately got enacted into law in the Civil Rights act of 1964, when he was President.)
Frankly, would expect a lawyer to have a better notion of what a "citation" really is. As in giving chapter & verse!
I did find this:
Widely attributed to Johnson, and in keeping with his reputation as a wily legislator, but no actual source found.
https://wist.info/author/johnson-lyndon/
UNLESS and UNTIL it get tracked down to a REAL source.
Which is ongoing.
https://www.discoverlbj.org/about
Interesting that someone in the mid 80s saw housing prices as a potential problem, isn’t it?
The flats were marketed to locals, who were being priced out of the area, initially.
I have no doubt that Labour will win seats from 3rd place and many will appear to be surprises (although I suspect not to those in the know), however that doesn't detract from the fact that extrapolating these MRP polls in some places is very dubious.
Look at @Andy_Cooke post for two examples for two different MTP polls:
C 27, LD 47, L 17
C 23, LD 32, L 31
C 31, LD 32, L 24
C 33, LD 17, L 38
These are not margin of error differences. These are huge difference. I assume Andy has his figures right.
And then there are other places like Guildford and Wokingham which plainly don't smell right.
The surge in the Labour vote, the collapse in the Conservative vote and the stagnation in the Lib Dem vote means there are going to be some surprise Labour victories from 3rd and Wantage and Didcot might be one of them and you are there on the ground to know, but the extrapolation of these MRP polls just looks nuts for some places and the difference in the results between polls can't be explained by statistical error (I believe).
PS Nobody is voting LD to keep Labour out in Godalming. It is a LD/Tory fight. But if you put a poll out in a Tory seat showing Labour ahead of the Tories and the LDs in a close 2nd and Tories 3rd then you will get unhappy Tories voting LD to stop Labour wouldn't you.
Suggest starting with "Master of the Senate" which chronicles LBJ's years as Majority Leader.
Unfortunately, yours truly does NOT have time at present to do as I've just suggested.
IF you REALLY want to immerse yourself in a cornucopia of crappola, then take a dive into the vast underworld of FAKE quotations "attributed" to Abraham Lincoln!
It rather brilliantly describes the state that Sunak has got himself into now. Even when he is right people will not want to give him any credit.
Though there are several thousand for "legislation"
Once complete, it will be an awesome resource ... which would have saved Caro a couple of decades at least.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mMvjhc8SiNg
"Legislative History of District of Columbia Self-government and Governmental Reorganization Act, S. 1435 (Public Law 93-198)"
https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/Legislative_History_of_District_of_Colum/g6wQBwwAoKQC?hl=en
In the midst of this endeavor, we are guided by a fundamental principle, a beacon of wisdom that illuminates our path forward: You do not examine legislation in the light of the benefits it will convey if properly administered but instead the the wrongs it might do and the harms it could cause if improperly administered.
As we contemplate the vast landscape of legislation before us, designed to uplift the impoverished, to educate the uninformed, to heal the sick, and to shelter the homeless, we must do so with a keen awareness of the immense power we wield and the profound responsibilities we bear. The Great Society we seek to build is not merely a collection of policies and programs but a manifestation of our collective values, our shared dreams, and our unwavering commitment to the betterment of all mankind.
Let us be clear: the challenges we face are not insurmountable. They are but tests of our resolve, opportunities to demonstrate the strength of our character and the depth of our compassion. We must approach each decision, each piece of legislation, with a critical eye, ever mindful of the potential consequences of our actions. For in our haste to do good, we must never inadvertently perpetuate injustice, nor must we allow the machinery of government to become an instrument of harm.
This, then, is the charge before us: to forge ahead with determination and foresight, to build a society that reflects the best of our ideals and the highest of our hopes. A society where every child can rise to their fullest potential, where the color of one's skin or the circumstances of their birth are not barriers to success, but rather affirmations of the richness of our diversity and the strength of our unity.
As we embark on this journey together, let us draw inspiration from the enduring spirit of the American people, a spirit characterized by resilience, ingenuity, and an unwavering belief in the promise of a better tomorrow. Let us move forward, not as individuals pursuing our own narrow interests, but as a united community, dedicated to the common good and committed to the realization of a truly Great Society.
BTW, the struggle for self-government (sorta) for District of Columbia, was part of the general struggle for civil rights for African Americans.
And we should be more critical of him for it.
But Obama is not on the ballot. And Obama is not actively hampering the provision of aid to Ukraine.
But, you must admit, it was pretty convincing.
Taxing multinational business is taxing the rich, but it’s usually talking other countries’ rich!
https://theintercept.com/2024/02/09/deconstructed-gaza-university-education/
Sometimes they film their barbarism:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-middle-east-68138210
Banks don't pay interest at BoE rate (screwing savers is a major source of profitability for them) and interest rates will be coming back down again soon enough in any case. House prices are already on their way back up again, and further increases are inevitable. If building continues to lag the relentless pace of population growth then scarcity will force them up. Straightforward supply and demand.
Some landlords have been forced to sell, but that'll mainly be down to the rising cost of servicing a BTL mortgage, and this puts a further stranglehold on supply which presumably helps to explain why rents have taken off like a rocket over the last couple of years. If you can buy outright then you'd have to work pretty hard not to turn a profit.
AND will this help deliver his Lagan Valley seat to Alliance, either in by-election or the GE?
Yet he's apparently appointed himself God-Botherer General.
Perhaps he should get someone to read to him from one of his personally-defaced Bibles?
Why? None of these things are remotely in the control of Pendle council. I’d rather my councillors focus on things they do have control over.
https://news.sky.com/story/israel-gaza-hamas-latest-middle-east-live-updates-sky-news-blog-12978800
Would a McCain administration have had a 'reset' with Putin after the invasion of Georgia? Hillary Clinton's attempts to ingratiate herself with Sergey Lavrov were a running joke on Russian comedy shows.
I have just read Chapter 1 of J.S. Mill's "On Liberty" (What else would I be doing on a damp Bank Holiday Monday?)
I suggest that Humza and his mates take a read, and reflect.
More headaches for Starmer too.
Also re: "Russian comedy shows".
Whatever one might say about Islam - at least their nutters are just normally crazy.
It's possible his Alliance opponent, Sorcha Eastwood, wouldn't particularly welcome a by-election as I understand her husband is seriously ill, although I haven't heard the latest on that.
Donaldson fairly easily topped the poll in the Assembly elections in 2022, so you'd surely expect the fact that he'll either be replaced or simply be a hugely diminished figure will help the Alliance.
Robbie Butler of the UUP (who was also Parliamentary candidate in 2019) extremely narrowly beat Eastwood to second place on first prefs in the same Assembly elections, but his running mate was absolutely nowhere so the strategy was clearly to get him elected whereas the Alliance tried and got both Eastwood and her running mate over the line. So I doubt UUP will come into it.
Go back and read the threads from 2012 and 2008: there was plenty of respect for McCain and Romney on these boards.
Remember when McCain called Obama a patriot? That's what we've lost. That's what we have to get back.
Seems clear to me the goal is a) revenge on all Palestinians (hence no food aid) and b) to expel the Palestinians from Gaza.
The Conservatives should go for the jugular on this - it mocks our liberal democratic system.
I've learned today that the LibDems supported this - after a lifetime of voting for them I'll never do so again.