Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went on the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
I wouldn't describe it as a tight fiscal position, it's an impossible one due to Hunt's unjustified NI tax cuts..
Oh drop this outright lie already.
Hunt put up taxes far more than he cut them. Extending the freeze on tax thresholds at a time of inflation much more than paid for NI cut, there were more taxes going up than down as @RochdalePioneers repeatedly said pre-election.
NI cuts benefit those who are working for a living and were funded by those who have unearned incomes having lower thresholds.
And NI is such an outrageous tax that any cut on it, especially a fully funded one like Hunt did, is entirely justified.
Just because the thresholds haven't increased doesn't mean the the NI cuts can be justified - you shouldn't be cutting taxes (randomly) while running a structural budget deficit...
As Micawber said of the balance between income and expenditure.
Well Hunt put up taxes more than he cut them, so cutting NI was completely justified then!
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
The facts are whatever the headline figures we do not have a 'tight' fiscal position we have a large structural deficit on top of an enormous debt pile on top of a critical spending crisis in the public sector.
Now, the trick to carrying that position was to keep interest rates low to ensure the borrowing was affordable. Truss' folly caused them to soar an astonishing twentyfold, and while some of that would have happened anyway her bizarre fiscal proposals made everything much worse.
So I stand by my statement. The lettuce would have been better.
Reeves needs to cut spending and remove legislation to get growth.
She will do the opposite in both cases.
On planning regulation (which is a biggie), it's pretty clear that the government is deregulating.
And for cutting spending, there are two honest options and one dishonest one.
The honest ones are to cut government functions, or do serious re-engineering to do them more efficiently. If you have concrete ideas- great. Tell me what they are and why the outgone government didn't do them.
The dishonest one is to pretend that you can get staff for public sector functions for less than they actually cost. Given the recruitment and retention problems all over the place, it's pretty clear that the government's recent offers haven't been enough.
The govt is on the cored as saying itwants to introduce more legislation into the labour market. If you mean planning we have yet to see the deregulation.
Do you seriously imagine a lawyer PM is going to leave us with less legislation ?
As for the last lot they are the same as this lot so they wont theyd happily pass more laws and spend bigly.
Is Goodwin still an academic? I wonder how BAME students of his feel. Can they be confident he will grade them fairly when he seems to think they have no business being in the country at all?
I don't think that's fair. He isn't a racist. Far from it.
I agree he isn't; what Goodwin has done is to enter two fields at the same time. He is both an academic and also a well known commentator/participant in a profoundly contested modern political arena. This is much more common on the left than on the right so he gets noticed more. He has to take the unfair flack that comes with the territory of the second field. If he just wrote boring books, like most academics, no-one would have heard of him.
If you contemplate left academics in their more colourful twitter moments you might ask what they feel about students who disagree with them too.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
oh the linky is definitely worth a watch for her reaction is icy(berg)..
Why on earth did she do that? I didn’t think the stunt was original or funny but she handled it very badly
We’ve all made mistakes in our job (except me of course), she made mistakes so bad in less than two months she became the shortest holder of her job, all in public view.
That must haunt you and possibly lead to you being in denial.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went on the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
I wouldn't describe it as a tight fiscal position, it's an impossible one due to Hunt's unjustified NI tax cuts..
We'll see if Reeves increases NI, She has after all a whole public sector demanding pay rises. Will she say no to GPs? Can she say no to the police ?
oh I don't think tax rises in that area are on the agenda although it would be the easiest way of fixing the issue.
As for the police I cannot remember a time when the independently recommended pay award for the police wasn't paid in full. Can you show me a time when it didn't happen?
Im sure they'll pay, it's just that I think the police will ask for a lot more on the back of the riots.
Again you demonstrate you haven't got a clue about what you are talking about.
The decision is completely independent (from both sides) but is always generous because of the no strike clauses.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
The facts are whatever the headline figures we do not have a 'tight' fiscal position we have a large structural deficit on top of an enormous debt pile on top of a critical spending crisis in the public sector.
Now, the trick to carrying that position was to keep interest rates low to ensure the borrowing was affordable. Truss' folly caused them to soar an astonishing twentyfold, and while some of that would have happened anyway her bizarre fiscal proposals made everything much worse.
So I stand by my statement. The lettuce would have been better.
Reeves needs to cut spending and remove legislation to get growth.
She will do the opposite in both cases.
On planning regulation (which is a biggie), it's pretty clear that the government is deregulating.
And for cutting spending, there are two honest options and one dishonest one.
The honest ones are to cut government functions, or do serious re-engineering to do them more efficiently. If you have concrete ideas- great. Tell me what they are and why the outgone government didn't do them.
The dishonest one is to pretend that you can get staff for public sector functions for less than they actually cost. Given the recruitment and retention problems all over the place, it's pretty clear that the government's recent offers haven't been enough.
As Foxy eloquently put it a while ago, if he does a shift in an NHS ward seeing patients, he's an unproductive drain on the taxpayer. If he does a couple of hours as a consultant in a private hospital, he's a shining beacon of capitalism paying into the country's coffers. Tories don't mind paying private companies to do the work, but balk at paying for the same services via tax.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
oh the linky is definitely worth a watch for her reaction is icy(berg)..
Why on earth did she do that? I didn’t think the stunt was original or funny but she handled it very badly
We’ve all made mistakes in our job (except me of course), she made mistakes so bad in less than two months she became the shortest holder of her job, all in public view.
That must haunt you and possibly lead to you being in denial.
I did feel rather sorry for Truss's 10 year old daughter attending Essex Jamboree - who had to be told multiple times, don't tell anyone who your mum is...
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
The selfish lonely loser thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
The selfish lonely loser thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers.
Good flounce. Tbh, I think people were laying it into @Leon a bit heavy in recent days. Maybe too much. He's histrionic and hyperbolic, and massively self-centered, but can also be a great polemicist and interesting.
And, I think he does have a point about pets. It's become ridiculous in this country now.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went on the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
I wouldn't describe it as a tight fiscal position, it's an impossible one due to Hunt's unjustified NI tax cuts..
Oh drop this outright lie already.
Hunt put up taxes far more than he cut them. Extending the freeze on tax thresholds at a time of inflation much more than paid for NI cut, there were more taxes going up than down as @RochdalePioneers repeatedly said pre-election.
NI cuts benefit those who are working for a living and were funded by those who have unearned incomes having lower thresholds.
And NI is such an outrageous tax that any cut on it, especially a fully funded one like Hunt did, is entirely justified.
Just because the thresholds haven't increased doesn't mean the the NI cuts can be justified - you shouldn't be cutting taxes (randomly) while running a structural budget deficit...
As Micawber said of the balance between income and expenditure.
Well Hunt put up taxes more than he cut them, so cutting NI was completely justified then!
That's all on the income side of the ledger.
The problem Sunak and Hunt had was that the expenditure side went up as well. Which is where Wilkins Micawber has something to say.
And if they couldn't find spending cuts that they thought they could get past the electorate, then I suspect those cuts don't really exist.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
The last line is the killer.
I appreciate that we are in the silly season before politics restarts in September, but there really is no-one in the Tory contest really making a case for Free Enterprise and Capitalism. They are either bogged down with navel gazing culture wars or simply dull as ditchwater.
Simply promising unfunded tax cuts does not equate to a coherent right wing vision. It shouldn't be a difficult case to make against Starmer/Reeves vision of cheese paring grey state corporation.
Hunt
Please tell me they're not going to spend time obsessing about that again. Michael Foster and Dennis Skinner are not MPs any more, there's no reason for it.
It doesn't seem a very satisfactory or particularly morally justifiable solution to a campaign of harrassment for Truss to have to give up public appearances, which apart from anything else, is how she now supports her family.
Peoples responses here to Truss are always quite astonishing. And it's always the people here who enjoy claiming the moral high ground.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
Even before it appears she seems somewhat hesitant and lacking in confidence. Not the gravitas of a former PM at all.
I seriously think she needs some help and maybe to look at a bit of a career change.
Agree with that, demeaning stunt by LBD - no need to kick someone when they're on the floor and clearly not getting back up.
Who is the ace interviewer btw? Clearly had some body language coaching. I reckon it's a PBer - but which one?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
On topic I have repeatedly cautioned that Trump was a long way from finished in this campaign and I stick by that. There are a whole range of things that could go wrong yet for Harris.
But I don't agree this is any longer Trump's election to lose. The recent polling in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan has been pretty solid for Harris and that is where this election is going to be won or lost. The fact that Hilary piled up mountains of votes inefficiently in California and New York does not mean that the same pattern will repeat. The Harris campaign seems much more focused on the swing states and may well have a more efficient vote distribution as a result.
Trump is the one who now needs a game changer. The current trends suit Harris just fine.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
@kinabalu: What a sad and terrible thing all of this is when you stop and think about it - Boris Johnson as leader now followed by Liz Truss.
I mean, this is the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain we're talking about here, the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain.
And who I feel for the most is the fans. People like you. Your loyalty is being sorely abused. I think you should go on strike.
@Leon WTF are you on about. The Tories have given us an actual creepy traitor, Ted Heath, a footling twat, John Major, a 12 year old, William Hague, an unelectable dolt, Ian Duncan Smith, and the Aspergery electoral disaster that is Theresa May
In comparison to those Boris is a titan of charisma, and Liz Truss might be perfectly fine: we don't know yet.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
He's not wrong there has been a long-standing antipathy towards him from many posters.
It doesn't need a degree in psychology to see that for the most part that antipathy is motivated by jealousy and insecurity.
Or because he is, in fact, a shit. I'm not jealous of him; I think his own insecurity is why he has to shower us with monotonous stories of his travels, where he sees little and learns less. I have a good life; and I fear I am more content and happier than he is. What has he got for me to be jealous of?
I hope he stays, or comes back soon, for he is part of this site. But so was Tim, and others that he has bullied off this site over the years.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Having read a lot of the threads didn't people just disagree in the same histrionic terms that Leon expressed them in the first place? I find him impossible to dislike because he's so puppyish (ironically) but you can't expect a moderate response if you start from a polemical position.
Good flounce. Tbh, I think people were laying it into @Leon a bit heavy in recent days. Maybe too much. He's histrionic and hyperbolic, and massively self-centered, but can also be a great polemicist and interesting.
And, I think he does have a point about pets. It's become ridiculous in this country now.
We hit that point in 2021 when the PM prioritised dogs over Afghans who had helped our soldiers.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
The facts are whatever the headline figures we do not have a 'tight' fiscal position we have a large structural deficit on top of an enormous debt pile on top of a critical spending crisis in the public sector.
Now, the trick to carrying that position was to keep interest rates low to ensure the borrowing was affordable. Truss' folly caused them to soar an astonishing twentyfold, and while some of that would have happened anyway her bizarre fiscal proposals made everything much worse.
So I stand by my statement. The lettuce would have been better.
Reeves needs to cut spending and remove legislation to get growth.
She will do the opposite in both cases.
Truss decided to try to borrow money to cut taxes.
Remind me how that went in terms of growth.
The Truss plan was cut taxes to incentivise investment (both from domestic and foreign sources) which would lead to more growth and higher tax revenue.
The problem was that it didn't work.
Business investment decisions work on much longer timescale and are rarely affected by tiny changes in tax rates.
And yes the Truss tax cuts were pretty tiny - certainly compared with the money she was planning to spend on energy subsidies.
On topic I have repeatedly cautioned that Trump was a long way from finished in this campaign and I stick by that. There are a whole range of things that could go wrong yet for Harris.
But I don't agree this is any longer Trump's election to lose. The recent polling in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan has been pretty solid for Harris and that is where this election is going to be won or lost. The fact that Hilary piled up mountains of votes inefficiently in California and New York does not mean that the same pattern will repeat. The Harris campaign seems much more focused on the swing states and may well have a more efficient vote distribution as a result.
Trump is the one who now needs a game changer. The current trends suit Harris just fine.
It will be interesting to see what effect the Democratic convention has.
The Republican one was, to put it mildly, a fiasco, overshadowed by three events: Trump's shooting, then the unveiling of Vance, then Biden's withdrawal.
If the Democrats can take what they've been doing on the stump to their convention and really hammer it out there, that will surely build momentum further.
One thing to watch is for new speeches. On the campaign trail Walz and Harris have delivered much the same speeches everywhere (even down to Harris' put down of the hecklers) and that would therefore be stale already by the convention. Something fresher will be needed.
The obvious thing to go with is policy. So far, ideas and aspirations, but little actual policy. So what can they offer that would appeal to a wide swathe of America and offer limited attack lines to the Orange Haired One?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
The facts are whatever the headline figures we do not have a 'tight' fiscal position we have a large structural deficit on top of an enormous debt pile on top of a critical spending crisis in the public sector.
Now, the trick to carrying that position was to keep interest rates low to ensure the borrowing was affordable. Truss' folly caused them to soar an astonishing twentyfold, and while some of that would have happened anyway her bizarre fiscal proposals made everything much worse.
So I stand by my statement. The lettuce would have been better.
Reeves needs to cut spending and remove legislation to get growth.
She will do the opposite in both cases.
Truss decided to try to borrow money to cut taxes.
Remind me how that went in terms of growth.
The Truss plan was cut taxes to incentivise investment (both from domestic and foreign sources) which would lead to more growth and higher tax revenue.
The problem was that it didn't work.
Business investment decisions work on much longer timescale and are rarely affected by tiny changes in tax rates.
And yes the Truss tax cuts were pretty tiny - certainly compared with the money she was planning to spend on energy subsidies.
The point is they were neither costed nor funded. And she knew it, and claimed the opposite.
Which made everyone wonder what else she was planning.
On topic I have repeatedly cautioned that Trump was a long way from finished in this campaign and I stick by that. There are a whole range of things that could go wrong yet for Harris.
But I don't agree this is any longer Trump's election to lose. The recent polling in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan has been pretty solid for Harris and that is where this election is going to be won or lost. The fact that Hilary piled up mountains of votes inefficiently in California and New York does not mean that the same pattern will repeat. The Harris campaign seems much more focused on the swing states and may well have a more efficient vote distribution as a result.
Trump is the one who now needs a game changer. The current trends suit Harris just fine.
It will be interesting to see what effect the Democratic convention has.
The Republican one was, to put it mildly, a fiasco, overshadowed by three events: Trump's shooting, then the unveiling of Vance, then Biden's withdrawal.
If the Democrats can take what they've been doing on the stump to their convention and really hammer it out there, that will surely build momentum further.
One thing to watch is for new speeches. On the campaign trail Walz and Harris have delivered much the same speeches everywhere (even down to Harris' put down of the hecklers) and that would therefore be stale already by the convention. Something fresher will be needed.
The obvious thing to go with is policy. So far, ideas and aspirations, but little actual policy. So what can they offer that would appeal to a wide swathe of America and offer limited attack lines to the Orange Haired One?
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
I think that is a state where Walz (and Hope) has gone down particularly well. It is now solid. Pennsylvania remains the key and it is the only State where Trump is outspending the Harris campaign right now.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
There is certainly an argument that keeping pets, particularly carnivorous ones, is bad. We are told eating meat is bad for the environment (methane). When my cat died, I noted that he ate more meat than I did (my blood group is mozzarella positive), and that the biggest contribution to the general waste bin, destined for landfill, was cat litter. I did not replace him.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
OTOH we had an otherwise excellent lunch at the Crab Shack Cafe in Wyke Regis ruined by a two year old brat on a neighbouring table who incessantly screamed at 80 dB for an hour and a half. Whatever happened to people keeping their kids under control?
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
There is certainly an argument that keeping pets, particularly carnivorous ones, is bad. We are told eating meat is bad for the environment (methane). When my cat died, I noted that he ate more meat than I did (my blood group is mozzarella positive), and that the biggest contribution to the general waste bin, destined for landfill, was cat litter. I did not replace him.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went on the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
"A tight fiscal position".
That's one way of describing the salting of the earth done in the last 12 months by the so called grown ups Sunak and Hunt.
In better times Jeremy Hunt might have made a decent Chancellor or even PM (although not in this current iteration of Tories), but his tenure was the very model of electioneering short termism with the seemingly intent of laying traps all over the place rather than doing anything for the long term.
Snap - I probably should have done some work during the three years I was there instead of working 3 days a week in London.
Thankfully the head of department hated his deputy and rather enjoyed my destruction of his deputy's new third year topic. Twas on Michael Porter's book competitive advantage of nations for which the deputy had only read the summary (so rather incomplete) version in the Harvard Business Review.
I remember it because he lined up his argument, I asked about Milan and his response was why are you talking about Milan - hmm have you actually read the book?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
OTOH we had an otherwise excellent lunch at the Crab Shack Cafe in Wyke Regis ruined by a two year old brat on a neighbouring table who incessantly screamed at 80 dB for an hour and a half. Whatever happened to people keeping their kids under control?
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
I had that once at Fromebridge Mill in Gloucestershire. Decent food (terrible service, admittedly) but on the next table there were two screaming, crying, shouting kids for whom nothing was good enough. They were really awful.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
There is certainly an argument that keeping pets, particularly carnivorous ones, is bad. We are told eating meat is bad for the environment (methane). When my cat died, I noted that he ate more meat than I did (my blood group is mozzarella positive), and that the biggest contribution to the general waste bin, destined for landfill, was cat litter. I did not replace him.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Having read a lot of the threads didn't people just disagree in the same histrionic terms that Leon expressed them in the first place? I find him impossible to dislike because he's so puppyish (ironically) but you can't expect a moderate response if you start from a polemical position.
Leon - and I am not a paid representative - is always very forthright about what motivates his posts. He is sharp, bright, and has a mind that is constantly questioning. All attributes that make his contributions to PB so enjoyable (would you really come to this site for anodyne analysis on the prospects of the next VP).
Such a mind I believe unnerves some posters on here.
And hence those posts excite weird reactions in those posters who fall over themselves to tell us how happy and content they are and how ridiculous he (Leon) is.
Pile-ons happen all the time here and it is unedifying and imo indicative of insecurity and in Leon's case jealousy also.
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
I think that is a state where Walz (and Hope) has gone down particularly well. It is now solid. Pennsylvania remains the key and it is the only State where Trump is outspending the Harris campaign right now.
Which also shows Trump's other problem - he hasn't got the money Harris has got while having significant (legal) fees to pay as well.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Health as well. Owning dogs is incontrovertibly good for both your physical and mental health and adds years to your life expectancy.
But even if we exclude health - isn't entertainment and amusement enough?
In the 21st century much of what we spend our time and money on is about entertainment and amusement. Millions of people work in jobs whose entire purpose is to provide entertainment and amusement to others.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
What's wriong with a bike trailer? It makes more sense for a walk some km away from home, e.g. if you live somewhere like a Southampton suburb rather than Cadnam and just need to get out of the built-up area first before actually starting walking.
As for a comparison with children, if one has children there's a fair chance they are in the car instead because it's safer thanks to nutters with cars; and more than one child means at least one on a bike, so safety again dictates a car.
Edit: but no argument with you there aboput uncontrolled dogs.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
On topic I have repeatedly cautioned that Trump was a long way from finished in this campaign and I stick by that. There are a whole range of things that could go wrong yet for Harris.
But I don't agree this is any longer Trump's election to lose. The recent polling in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan has been pretty solid for Harris and that is where this election is going to be won or lost. The fact that Hilary piled up mountains of votes inefficiently in California and New York does not mean that the same pattern will repeat. The Harris campaign seems much more focused on the swing states and may well have a more efficient vote distribution as a result.
Trump is the one who now needs a game changer. The current trends suit Harris just fine.
The polling does seem to show a more efficient Democratic Electoral College vote than in 2016 and 2020, though whether this is down to Harris campaign focusing on the swing states is debatable, to say the least (though her VP voice hasn't hurt). After all Biden 2020 focused on those states and the 2020 vote was, if anything, less efficient than the 2016 Dem vote. And tbf Clinton 2016 only ignored Wisconsin, where Biden improved the Dem-Republican margin by less than he did nationally.
As an aside, both Clinton 2016 and Trump 2016 paid more attention to Florida than any other state.
Good flounce. Tbh, I think people were laying it into @Leon a bit heavy in recent days. Maybe too much. He's histrionic and hyperbolic, and massively self-centered, but can also be a great polemicist and interesting.
And, I think he does have a point about pets. It's become ridiculous in this country now.
We hit that point in 2021 when the PM prioritised dogs over Afghans who had helped our soldiers.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
There a good historical reasons for owning cats and dogs. Cats keep vermin away and dogs can do a lot of useful things like guard your stuff or help you hunt. There is also a theory that dogs essentially domesticated themselves by hanging around campfires for scraps. What is damaging is the modern way of pure breeding and the sheer prevalence of pets.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Historically of course they were owned for food, help getting food, or protection.
I feel your question though indicates why you find animal owning bizarre - the biggest reason for pet ownership is not amusement or entertainment, it's companionship. If that seems weird to you then fair enough, I respect that it's not for you, but that's the driver.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Having read a lot of the threads didn't people just disagree in the same histrionic terms that Leon expressed them in the first place? I find him impossible to dislike because he's so puppyish (ironically) but you can't expect a moderate response if you start from a polemical position.
Leon - and I am not a paid representative - is always very forthright about what motivates his posts. He is sharp, bright, and has a mind that is constantly questioning. All attributes that make his contributions to PB so enjoyable (would you really come to this site for anodyne analysis on the prospects of the next VP).
Such a mind I believe unnerves some posters on here.
And hence those posts excite weird reactions in those posters who fall over themselves to tell us how happy and content they are and how ridiculous he (Leon) is.
Pile-ons happen all the time here and it is unedifying and imo indicative of insecurity and in Leon's case jealousy also.
Oh give over.
Leon is an attention whore, he loves the attention. He feeds on it.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went on the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
"A tight fiscal position".
That's one way of describing the salting of the earth done in the last 12 months by the so called grown ups Sunak and Hunt.
In better times Jeremy Hunt might have made a decent Chancellor or even PM (although not in this current iteration of Tories), but his tenure was the very model of electioneering short termism with the seemingly intent of laying traps all over the place rather than doing anything for the long term.
The fiscal equivalent of the garden after the neighbour's cats have been at it.
This looks like a lot of arguments we heard in the 2 or 3 years prior to 4/7, about how a Lab majority was out of the question because it would require the biggest swing since Bonar Law's liberal unionist party in 1874 or something. Never mind the numbers, look at the people, was profitable advice then and probably now.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
OTOH we had an otherwise excellent lunch at the Crab Shack Cafe in Wyke Regis ruined by a two year old brat on a neighbouring table who incessantly screamed at 80 dB for an hour and a half. Whatever happened to people keeping their kids under control?
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
I had that once at Fromebridge Mill in Gloucestershire. Decent food (terrible service, admittedly) but on the next table there were two screaming, crying, shouting kids for whom nothing was good enough. They were really awful.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
OTOH we had an otherwise excellent lunch at the Crab Shack Cafe in Wyke Regis ruined by a two year old brat on a neighbouring table who incessantly screamed at 80 dB for an hour and a half. Whatever happened to people keeping their kids under control?
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
You make my point for me. All parents struggle with this, and you will have been the same as a kid yourself. The parents will have been doing their best and as frustrated as anyone. But this sort of reaction is totally abnormal in the rest of Europe - where they love kids - as opposed to here where we hate them.
We just don't like other people very much, and need animals to project and express our emotions upon.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Health as well. Owning dogs is incontrovertibly good for both your physical and mental health and adds years to your life expectancy.
But even if we exclude health - isn't entertainment and amusement enough?
In the 21st century much of what we spend our time and money on is about entertainment and amusement. Millions of people work in jobs whose entire purpose is to provide entertainment and amusement to others.
I mean yes of course. We own, and eat them for our entertainment and enjoyment.
But there is a legitimate line of argument which says this is bizarre. All sentient creatures that we either eat or make perform for us.
Take (horse) racing for example. Those in the game don't see a future beyond, say 10-15 years with jumps racing going first. An increasing number of people thinks that - in this case - making a horse jump 20 fences over three miles is bizarre and cruel.
It is the direction of travel of society and pets will at some point be in the firing line. So to speak (actually literally as what would we do with all the cats if we don't keep them as pets was going to be my response to Leon last night if I'd been on...)
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Just seems like simple harrassment?
Yes, a bit cruel.
It's humiliating enough to be speaking to an empty village hall, just 2 years after being Mistress of the Universe who was going to surprise on the upside.
And the robust freedom of speech answer is- if you don't like what LBD have done here, you are fully free to criticise them and think less of them.
And Truss ultimately has a decision to make. If she doesn't want the lettuce gags every time she speaks, it might be better all round for her to leaf the public eye for a bit.
Even if you agree with Truss's views, there are better spokespeople. Aren't there?
Not to worry, Reeves will have people sending her a bucket of shite when she leaves office.
She's already been handed a pretty massive bucket of shite thanks in no small part to Truss.
Rofl, I thought dear teacher you went of the facts. She has been handed a mixed bag, reasonable growth, inflation backdown but a tight fiscal position. She has responded by undermining her credibility by lying on the size of that position and making it worse with inflationary pay rises.
Cancel growth she doesnt know how to do it.
The facts are whatever the headline figures we do not have a 'tight' fiscal position we have a large structural deficit on top of an enormous debt pile on top of a critical spending crisis in the public sector.
Now, the trick to carrying that position was to keep interest rates low to ensure the borrowing was affordable. Truss' folly caused them to soar an astonishing twentyfold, and while some of that would have happened anyway her bizarre fiscal proposals made everything much worse.
So I stand by my statement. The lettuce would have been better.
Reeves needs to cut spending and remove legislation to get growth.
She will do the opposite in both cases.
On planning regulation (which is a biggie), it's pretty clear that the government is deregulating.
And for cutting spending, there are two honest options and one dishonest one.
The honest ones are to cut government functions, or do serious re-engineering to do them more efficiently. If you have concrete ideas- great. Tell me what they are and why the outgone government didn't do them.
The dishonest one is to pretend that you can get staff for public sector functions for less than they actually cost. Given the recruitment and retention problems all over the place, it's pretty clear that the government's recent offers haven't been enough.
As Foxy eloquently put it a while ago, if he does a shift in an NHS ward seeing patients, he's an unproductive drain on the taxpayer. If he does a couple of hours as a consultant in a private hospital, he's a shining beacon of capitalism paying into the country's coffers. Tories don't mind paying private companies to do the work, but balk at paying for the same services via tax.
There are some things government does better - monopoly utilities, for example (if only because their cost of capital is lower) - and some things evidently worse.
And there's a whole grey area in the middle. Housing is in that category at the moment, I think.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Cycling in the New Forest yesterday I saw about 3 or 4 times as many bike trailers for stupid silly little dogs than I did for people's children. We might have been the only ones in fact.
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
OTOH we had an otherwise excellent lunch at the Crab Shack Cafe in Wyke Regis ruined by a two year old brat on a neighbouring table who incessantly screamed at 80 dB for an hour and a half. Whatever happened to people keeping their kids under control?
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
I had that once at Fromebridge Mill in Gloucestershire. Decent food (terrible service, admittedly) but on the next table there were two screaming, crying, shouting kids for whom nothing was good enough. They were really awful.
I'd put their ages at maybe 55-60.
Brilliant. I have witnessed atrociously behaved and really obnoxious pensioners myself. Cackling, wailing and being rude and offensive with very bad manners.
This looks like a lot of arguments we heard in the 2 or 3 years prior to 4/7, about how a Lab majority was out of the question because it would require the biggest swing since Bonar Law's liberal unionist party in 1874 or something. Never mind the numbers, look at the people, was profitable advice then and probably now.
Nobody said that.
1) The Liberal Unionists were founded in 1886
2) Bonar Law was not a Liberal Unionist.
3) 1906, 1924, 1945 and 1997 were all bigger swings that 1874.
Honestly, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra these days
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
oh the linky is definitely worth a watch for her reaction is icy(berg)..
Why on earth did she do that? I didn’t think the stunt was original or funny but she handled it very badly
She combines the hide of a rhino with an embarrassing lack of any ability to quickly think on her feet and make light of any situation. Its a harmless joke and no one like being laughed at, but she would have been better to have rolled her eyes & moved on.
She can't be getting paid huge bucks to speak to 1/2 a dozen people with a bored slobbish interviewer.
Surely her family must be telling her to have a break from this nonsense and have a good holiday. Spend some time with her daughters who will presumably be at University soon and away from home.
In some recent clips she doesn't look particularly well.
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
I think that is a state where Walz (and Hope) has gone down particularly well. It is now solid. Pennsylvania remains the key and it is the only State where Trump is outspending the Harris campaign right now.
Which also shows Trump's other problem - he hasn't got the money Harris has got while having significant (legal) fees to pay as well.
Yes, and he still has a deferred sentence to deal with before the election, as well as a risk that one of his other trials may restart. But Harris has yet to do a serious interview since being nominated and has the risk of being accountable for some of the less successful parts of the Biden administration. And then there is the debate or debates. Trump wants 3 and Harris seems increasingly content with 1, which shows you who thinks the race is theirs to lose right now.
In her previous iteration she was a lousy debater. She may have improved.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Yes, because you can.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Health as well. Owning dogs is incontrovertibly good for both your physical and mental health and adds years to your life expectancy.
But even if we exclude health - isn't entertainment and amusement enough?
In the 21st century much of what we spend our time and money on is about entertainment and amusement. Millions of people work in jobs whose entire purpose is to provide entertainment and amusement to others.
I mean yes of course. We own, and eat them for our entertainment and enjoyment.
But there is a legitimate line of argument which says this is bizarre. All sentient creatures that we either eat or make perform for us.
Take (horse) racing for example. Those in the game don't see a future beyond, say 10-15 years with jumps racing going first. An increasing number of people thinks that - in this case - making a horse jump 20 fences over three miles is bizarre and cruel.
It is the direction of travel of society and pets will at some point be in the firing line. So to speak (actually literally as what would we do with all the cats if we don't keep them as pets was going to be my response to Leon last night if I'd been on...)
The answer to the last question is simply: don't breed them. Ditto dogs.
(We never did find out, I must say, whether anyone on PB actually ate the former.)
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
I think that is a state where Walz (and Hope) has gone down particularly well. It is now solid. Pennsylvania remains the key and it is the only State where Trump is outspending the Harris campaign right now.
Which also shows Trump's other problem - he hasn't got the money Harris has got while having significant (legal) fees to pay as well.
Yes, and he still has a deferred sentence to deal with before the election, as well as a risk that one of his other trials may restart. But Harris has yet to do a serious interview since being nominated and has the risk of being accountable for some of the less successful parts of the Biden administration. And then there is the debate or debates. Trump wants 3 and Harris seems increasingly content with 1, which shows you who thinks the race is theirs to lose right now.
In her previous iteration she was a lousy debater. She may have improved.
She has the priceless advantage that she is now facing Trump, and a Trump who is clearly losing his grip and focus as well as his grasp of reality, not Sanders or Biden.
She does, as she says, know his type and she can focus in on the BS he spouts. She also has no reason to hold back.
As a lawyer, she's trained to think quickly and pick up on lies.
Of course, forensic debating won't necessarily shift the MAGA faithful, but it doesn't have to. If she does to Trump what Ossoff did to Perdue it will wreak havoc for him.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
The problem I had and can only speak for myself, is not someone arguing against pet ownership. It was the sheer hypocrisy of Leon mooting it on environmental grounds when I have no doubt his carbon footprint and ecological damage of his lifestyle is probably several times that of most PB'ers, that before you also factor in that his job is also to persuade others to join in his ecocidal tendencies.
My carbon footprint for example is about 3 tons, to have someone like Leon therefore telling me to get rid of my owner....
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Health as well. Owning dogs is incontrovertibly good for both your physical and mental health and adds years to your life expectancy.
But even if we exclude health - isn't entertainment and amusement enough?
In the 21st century much of what we spend our time and money on is about entertainment and amusement. Millions of people work in jobs whose entire purpose is to provide entertainment and amusement to others.
I mean yes of course. We own, and eat them for our entertainment and enjoyment.
But there is a legitimate line of argument which says this is bizarre. All sentient creatures that we either eat or make perform for us.
Take (horse) racing for example. Those in the game don't see a future beyond, say 10-15 years with jumps racing going first. An increasing number of people thinks that - in this case - making a horse jump 20 fences over three miles is bizarre and cruel.
It is the direction of travel of society and pets will at some point be in the firing line. So to speak (actually literally as what would we do with all the cats if we don't keep them as pets was going to be my response to Leon last night if I'd been on...)
The answer to the last question is simply: don't breed them. Ditto dogs.
(We never did find out, I must say, whether anyone on PB actually ate the former.)
I've eaten dog. In China. Very rich. Not at all like chicken.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
I think that is a state where Walz (and Hope) has gone down particularly well. It is now solid. Pennsylvania remains the key and it is the only State where Trump is outspending the Harris campaign right now.
Which also shows Trump's other problem - he hasn't got the money Harris has got while having significant (legal) fees to pay as well.
Yes, and he still has a deferred sentence to deal with before the election, as well as a risk that one of his other trials may restart. But Harris has yet to do a serious interview since being nominated and has the risk of being accountable for some of the less successful parts of the Biden administration. And then there is the debate or debates. Trump wants 3 and Harris seems increasingly content with 1, which shows you who thinks the race is theirs to lose right now.
In her previous iteration she was a lousy debater. She may have improved.
Trump wants a debate on Fox, Harris is doing the sane thing and avoiding going within 1000 miles of a Fox TV studio..
Now there may be more than 1 debate but it's safe to say that Fox won't be hosting any of them..
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Don't you hunt ?
Absolutely.
No problem: your problem and the other folks' problems are easily reconciled by this concept I discovered yesterday. See the Graun story about this in NZ I posted earlier (maybe on last thread) - actually here it is in case.
He's not wrong there has been a long-standing antipathy towards him from many posters.
It doesn't need a degree in psychology to see that for the most part that antipathy is motivated by jealousy and insecurity.
Or because he is, in fact, a shit. I'm not jealous of him; I think his own insecurity is why he has to shower us with monotonous stories of his travels, where he sees little and learns less. I have a good life; and I fear I am more content and happier than he is. What has he got for me to be jealous of?
I hope he stays, or comes back soon, for he is part of this site. But so was Tim, and others that he has bullied off this site over the years.
Why would you fear being happier than him?
Because I'd love for everyone to be as happy as I am.
This looks like a lot of arguments we heard in the 2 or 3 years prior to 4/7, about how a Lab majority was out of the question because it would require the biggest swing since Bonar Law's liberal unionist party in 1874 or something. Never mind the numbers, look at the people, was profitable advice then and probably now.
Nobody said that.
1) The Liberal Unionists were founded in 1886
2) Bonar Law was not a Liberal Unionist.
3) 1906, 1924, 1945 and 1997 were all bigger swings that 1874.
Honestly, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra these days
My intention was satirical (and I am disappointed at how close to fact it was, I thought I had made the liberal unionists up)
Best thing about Bonar Law is that Bonar is a given name. I used to think he was John Bonar Law or something
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Don't you hunt ?
Absolutely.
No problem: your problem and the other folks' problems are easily reconciled by this concept I discovered yesterday. See the Graun story about this in NZ I posted earlier (maybe on last thread) - actually here it is in case.
The U.K. civil service watchdog was not told of a senior official’s previous donations to the Labour Party when it approved his appointment to a top Treasury role.
Ian Corfield, a former banker who was a senior business adviser to the party in opposition, donated more than £20,000 to Labour politicians including the now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the run up to the general election in July.
POLITICO first reported he had been appointed as a director of investment at the Treasury, a post usually reserved for career civil servants. While his precise remuneration is not public, similar government roles pay up to £162,500.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Here is a recent decision by my council regarding dogs in cemeteries. I'd be furious if I went to visit a family grave and some excitable Spaniel came jumping up at me.
I think some dog owners simply cannot comprehend that not everyone loves their dog as much as they do, and that the world doesn't revolve around Rover.
This looks like a lot of arguments we heard in the 2 or 3 years prior to 4/7, about how a Lab majority was out of the question because it would require the biggest swing since Bonar Law's liberal unionist party in 1874 or something. Never mind the numbers, look at the people, was profitable advice then and probably now.
Nobody said that.
1) The Liberal Unionists were founded in 1886
2) Bonar Law was not a Liberal Unionist.
3) 1906, 1924, 1945 and 1997 were all bigger swings that 1874.
Honestly, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra these days
My intention was satirical (and I am disappointed at how close to fact it was, I thought I had made the liberal unionists up)
Best thing about Bonar Law is that Bonar is a given name. I used to think he was John Bonar Law or something
His full name was Andrew Bonar Law. But nobody ever called him Andrew.
The Liberal Unionists split with Gladstone over Home Rule for Ireland, which they opposed. Under the leadership of Lord Hartington, Gladstone's successor and predecessor as Liberal leader from 1875-1880, they joined the Conservatives to form a Unionist coalition that dominated politics for the next 20 years until 1906.
Before Walz, who was the last union member on a Presidential ticket ?
Was it Reagan?
Who was not just a union member but a union leader who led a nationwide strike, which must have been a bitter pill for the air traffic controllers to swallow given what followed.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Yes, because you can.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
Is the snake happy, though? Or doesn't that matter?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Yes, because you can.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
Is the snake happy, though? Or doesn't that matter?
Its a snake.
It probably is, so long as its well fed and well looked after.
Here is a recent decision by my council regarding dogs in cemeteries. I'd be furious if I went to visit a family grave and some excitable Spaniel came jumping up at me.
I think some dog owners simply cannot comprehend that not everyone loves their dog as much as they do, and that the world doesn't revolve around Rover.
Go forth and ... Liz Truss still opinionating that Trump will probably win because of the economy.
(Burning my image quota for the day, and acknowledging @Foxy got there first, and slightly trimming on my temporary PB-break because we are having good posts / conversation.)
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
There is certainly an argument that keeping pets, particularly carnivorous ones, is bad. We are told eating meat is bad for the environment (methane). When my cat died, I noted that he ate more meat than I did (my blood group is mozzarella positive), and that the biggest contribution to the general waste bin, destined for landfill, was cat litter. I did not replace him.
Personally I think owning dogs and cats is wonderful - a privilege not to be taken lightly, but undoubtedly a privilege. The attack on it is very 'let's all apologise for being human', and I think it's ludicrous.
That said, if Leon is saying something I don't like, I can debate with him, or scroll on. I don't see how the forum 'would be better' without him - how? So people can have their opinions and prejudices stroked by people who agree with them?
We all have posts we enjoy reading and posts that are not our cup of tea. Either have a good argument if it's worth it, scroll past if it's not.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
Having read a lot of the threads didn't people just disagree in the same histrionic terms that Leon expressed them in the first place? I find him impossible to dislike because he's so puppyish (ironically) but you can't expect a moderate response if you start from a polemical position.
Leon - and I am not a paid representative - is always very forthright about what motivates his posts. He is sharp, bright, and has a mind that is constantly questioning. All attributes that make his contributions to PB so enjoyable (would you really come to this site for anodyne analysis on the prospects of the next VP).
Such a mind I believe unnerves some posters on here.
And hence those posts excite weird reactions in those posters who fall over themselves to tell us how happy and content they are and how ridiculous he (Leon) is.
Pile-ons happen all the time here and it is unedifying and imo indicative of insecurity and in Leon's case jealousy also.
Aren't we due a regeneration?
I wonder if he reverts back to Mercian Kings and Queens for his new moniker.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Yes, because you can.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
Is the snake happy, though? Or doesn't that matter?
Its a snake.
It probably is, so long as its well fed and well looked after.
You in a cage, well fed and well looked after. Are you happy?
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Don't you hunt ?
Absolutely.
No problem: your problem and the other folks' problems are easily reconciled by this concept I discovered yesterday. See the Graun story about this in NZ I posted earlier (maybe on last thread) - actually here it is in case.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is bizarre, though, isn't it. Why would you own another animal. For what purpose apart from your own entertainment and amusement. Is that the role of animals as you see it, to provide us amusement and entertainment.
Don't you hunt ?
Absolutely.
No problem: your problem and the other folks' problems are easily reconciled by this concept I discovered yesterday. See the Graun story about this in NZ I posted earlier (maybe on last thread) - actually here it is in case.
Note that this is for feral cats. Actually I do seriously wonder about the ethics - and far more so about the politics - of such a scheme in the UK.
You can see endless videos on YouTube of terriers killing rats. But killing foxes is illegal.
Hang on - killing foxes *is* legal: just not with the hunt or in that way. Which last is, I agree, an apparent inconsistency! Fox is a lot more dangerous for Rover, though, so there is some sense in it.
Without Leon, this place won't be as much fun, or as informative on crazy subjects that don't usually pop up. PB is a lesser place without him. I haven't gone through the last thread so don't know why he flounced, but I hope he comes back.
The dog eater thinks cat and dog owners are selfish lonely losers as their pets are ruining the environment.
He got into a huff when a few people pointed out if he was so concerned about the environment would he be giving up plane travel.
In short he’s just like Polly Toynbee.
He said that owning animals is bizarre and that pets do a lot of damage. Both uncontrovertible.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
"owning animals is bizarre"...?
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
It is a valid question, though. Throughout history, we used animals as food, to work, for protection, that is unquestionable. It made humans the dominant species. But now, do we need to? We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we? I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
Yes of course we should.
Why should we not?
Why though? Just because you can? I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Yes, because you can.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
Is the snake happy, though? Or doesn't that matter?
Its a snake.
It probably is, so long as its well fed and well looked after.
You in a cage, well fed and well looked after. Are you happy?
Comments
Do you seriously imagine a lawyer PM is going to leave us with less legislation ?
As for the last lot they are the same as this lot so they wont theyd happily pass more laws and spend bigly.
If you contemplate left academics in their more colourful twitter moments you might ask what they feel about students who disagree with them too.
That must haunt you and possibly lead to you being in denial.
The decision is completely independent (from both sides) but is always generous because of the no strike clauses.
Tories don't mind paying private companies to do the work, but balk at paying for the same services via tax.
And then people unleashed their insecurities.
And, I think he does have a point about pets. It's become ridiculous in this country now.
The problem Sunak and Hunt had was that the expenditure side went up as well. Which is where Wilkins Micawber has something to say.
And if they couldn't find spending cuts that they thought they could get past the electorate, then I suspect those cuts don't really exist.
Peoples responses here to Truss are always quite astonishing. And it's always the people here who enjoy claiming the moral high ground.
Who is the ace interviewer btw? Clearly had some body language coaching. I reckon it's a PBer - but which one?
It seems, in this country, people are far more interested in a dog or cat - who they freely let shit and wee everywhere with "oh, don't worry - he won't bite!" *SNAP* - than their own children, let alone anyone else's.
But I don't agree this is any longer Trump's election to lose. The recent polling in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan has been pretty solid for Harris and that is where this election is going to be won or lost. The fact that Hilary piled up mountains of votes inefficiently in California and New York does not mean that the same pattern will repeat. The Harris campaign seems much more focused on the swing states and may well have a more efficient vote distribution as a result.
Trump is the one who now needs a game changer. The current trends suit Harris just fine.
https://vf.politicalbetting.com/discussion/comment/4071792#Comment_4071792
@kinabalu: What a sad and terrible thing all of this is when you stop and think about it - Boris Johnson as leader now followed by Liz Truss.
I mean, this is the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain we're talking about here, the Conservative and Unionist Party of Great Britain.
And who I feel for the most is the fans. People like you. Your loyalty is being sorely abused. I think you should go on strike.
@Leon WTF are you on about. The Tories have given us an actual creepy traitor, Ted Heath, a footling twat, John Major, a 12 year old, William Hague, an unelectable dolt, Ian Duncan Smith, and the Aspergery electoral disaster that is Theresa May
In comparison to those Boris is a titan of charisma, and Liz Truss might be perfectly fine: we don't know yet.
Enough of your animal rights wokist nonsense - humans have owned animals for 10,000 years, it's one of the things that define humans. Throughout history the vast majority of humans who reached adulthood have owned animals.
The problem was that it didn't work.
Business investment decisions work on much longer timescale and are rarely affected by tiny changes in tax rates.
And yes the Truss tax cuts were pretty tiny - certainly compared with the money she was planning to spend on energy subsidies.
Harris is now +9 in Wisconsin (51 to 42) on a head to head with Trump. The poll is by the Independent Center (no, me neither...)
That 9% lead is maintained if you include third parties (Kennedy Jnr gets only 3%).
Reminder, Biden won Wisconsin by just 0.63% in 2020.
The Republican one was, to put it mildly, a fiasco, overshadowed by three events: Trump's shooting, then the unveiling of Vance, then Biden's withdrawal.
If the Democrats can take what they've been doing on the stump to their convention and really hammer it out there, that will surely build momentum further.
One thing to watch is for new speeches. On the campaign trail Walz and Harris have delivered much the same speeches everywhere (even down to Harris' put down of the hecklers) and that would therefore be stale already by the convention. Something fresher will be needed.
The obvious thing to go with is policy. So far, ideas and aspirations, but little actual policy. So what can they offer that would appeal to a wide swathe of America and offer limited attack lines to the Orange Haired One?
Which made everyone wonder what else she was planning.
We are told eating meat is bad for the environment (methane).
When my cat died, I noted that he ate more meat than I did (my blood group is mozzarella positive), and that the biggest contribution to the general waste bin, destined for landfill, was cat litter. I did not replace him.
(Ok, I exaggerate - we still had a great meal - and it must be bloody awful for the parents but jeez that kid was loud and persistent.)
I like that.
That's one way of describing the salting of the earth done in the last 12 months by the so called grown ups Sunak and Hunt.
In better times Jeremy Hunt might have made a decent Chancellor or even PM (although not in this current iteration of Tories), but his tenure was the very model of electioneering short termism with the seemingly intent of laying traps all over the place rather than doing anything for the long term.
Thankfully the head of department hated his deputy and rather enjoyed my destruction of his deputy's new third year topic. Twas on Michael Porter's book competitive advantage of nations for which the deputy had only read the summary (so rather incomplete) version in the Harvard Business Review.
I remember it because he lined up his argument, I asked about Milan and his response was why are you talking about Milan - hmm have you actually read the book?
I'd put their ages at maybe 55-60.
Maybe a bit cheesy?
Such a mind I believe unnerves some posters on here.
And hence those posts excite weird reactions in those posters who fall over themselves to tell us how happy and content they are and how ridiculous he (Leon) is.
Pile-ons happen all the time here and it is unedifying and imo indicative of insecurity and in Leon's case jealousy also.
But even if we exclude health - isn't entertainment and amusement enough?
In the 21st century much of what we spend our time and money on is about entertainment and amusement. Millions of people work in jobs whose entire purpose is to provide entertainment and amusement to others.
We don't even need them for food anymore. Is it morally right to keep a snake in a glass box in your front room? A bird in a cage? A dog in a city centre flat? A cat that you kick out to go and crap in the neighbourhood gardens? A horse to ride? Zoos? SeaWorld? Just because we can? Should we?
I'm increasingly leaning towards no.
As for a comparison with children, if one has children there's a fair chance they are in the car instead because it's safer thanks to nutters with cars; and more than one child means at least one on a bike, so safety again dictates a car.
Edit: but no argument with you there aboput uncontrolled dogs.
Why should we not?
As an aside, both Clinton 2016 and Trump 2016 paid more attention to Florida than any other state.
I feel your question though indicates why you find animal owning bizarre - the biggest reason for pet ownership is not amusement or entertainment, it's companionship. If that seems weird to you then fair enough, I respect that it's not for you, but that's the driver.
Leon is an attention whore, he loves the attention. He feeds on it.
Its not jealousy, its giving him what he wants.
Opinion polls significantly overestimated the Dems in Wisconsin in both 2016 and 2020:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2016_United_States_presidential_election#Wisconsin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election#Wisconsin
But never fear, I'll be back!
We just don't like other people very much, and need animals to project and express our emotions upon.
But there is a legitimate line of argument which says this is bizarre. All sentient creatures that we either eat or make perform for us.
Take (horse) racing for example. Those in the game don't see a future beyond, say 10-15 years with jumps racing going first. An increasing number of people thinks that - in this case - making a horse jump 20 fences over three miles is bizarre and cruel.
It is the direction of travel of society and pets will at some point be in the firing line. So to speak (actually literally as what would we do with all the cats if we don't keep them as pets was going to be my response to Leon last night if I'd been on...)
And there's a whole grey area in the middle. Housing is in that category at the moment, I think.
And, no, I'm not joking.
1) The Liberal Unionists were founded in 1886
2) Bonar Law was not a Liberal Unionist.
3) 1906, 1924, 1945 and 1997 were all bigger swings that 1874.
Honestly, factual accuracy seems to be an optional extra these days
I'm not judging or criticising, just questioning is it moral to keep a snake in a glass box just because we can?
Its a harmless joke and no one like being laughed at, but she would have been better to have rolled her eyes & moved on.
She can't be getting paid huge bucks to speak to 1/2 a dozen people with a bored slobbish interviewer.
Surely her family must be telling her to have a break from this nonsense and have a good holiday. Spend some time with her daughters who will presumably be at University soon and away from home.
In some recent clips she doesn't look particularly well.
In her previous iteration she was a lousy debater. She may have improved.
You should do what you want that makes you happy. If looking after a snake makes you happy, and you treat it well and feed it well, then good for you. Not my thing, but you do you.
(We never did find out, I must say, whether anyone on PB actually ate the former.)
She does, as she says, know his type and she can focus in on the BS he spouts. She also has no reason to hold back.
As a lawyer, she's trained to think quickly and pick up on lies.
Of course, forensic debating won't necessarily shift the MAGA faithful, but it doesn't have to. If she does to Trump what Ossoff did to Perdue it will wreak havoc for him.
My carbon footprint for example is about 3 tons, to have someone like Leon therefore telling me to get rid of my owner....
Now there may be more than 1 debate but it's safe to say that Fox won't be hosting any of them..
https://www.theguardian.com/world/article/2024/jul/02/new-zealand-feral-cat-killing-competition
Note that this is for feral cats. Actually I do seriously wonder about the ethics - and far more so about the politics - of such a scheme in the UK.
Best thing about Bonar Law is that Bonar is a given name. I used to think he was John Bonar Law or something
Ian Corfield, a former banker who was a senior business adviser to the party in opposition, donated more than £20,000 to Labour politicians including the now-Chancellor Rachel Reeves in the run up to the general election in July.
POLITICO first reported he had been appointed as a director of investment at the Treasury, a post usually reserved for career civil servants. While his precise remuneration is not public, similar government roles pay up to £162,500.
I think some dog owners simply cannot comprehend that not everyone loves their dog as much as they do, and that the world doesn't revolve around Rover.
BBC News - Edinburgh council votes to allow dog walking in cemeteries
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp81mgvgd4mo
The Liberal Unionists split with Gladstone over Home Rule for Ireland, which they opposed. Under the leadership of Lord Hartington, Gladstone's successor and predecessor as Liberal leader from 1875-1880, they joined the Conservatives to form a Unionist coalition that dominated politics for the next 20 years until 1906.
Who was not just a union member but a union leader who led a nationwide strike, which must have been a bitter pill for the air traffic controllers to swallow given what followed.
It probably is, so long as its well fed and well looked after.
Politicians follow.
So not even in the USA.
That said, if Leon is saying something I don't like, I can debate with him, or scroll on. I don't see how the forum 'would be better' without him - how? So people can have their opinions and prejudices stroked by people who agree with them?
We all have posts we enjoy reading and posts that are not our cup of tea. Either have a good argument if it's worth it, scroll past if it's not.
I wonder if he reverts back to Mercian Kings and Queens for his new moniker.
I've never had any problem with foxes being hunted.
So no big change there as far as I can see. We're pretty much as we were.