NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
Starmer also continues to pay for his Arsenal season ticket.
Does he then sell the seats through the Arsenal secondary market, recouping - IIRC - 80% of face?
He doesn't have a season ticket any more. It's another one of his vague lawyerly mistruths that he has allowed to continue, to let people use as reasoning to support his actions.
Any evidence of this ?
Most football fans hold on to season tickets like limpets particularly at the likes of Arsenal, United, Liverpool and even Everton, and which is why some season ticket holders at Liverpool are rumoured to have reached the ripe old age of 107
They can get face value back from the club without difficulty.
When he's left office and on the ex PM speech gravy train, I'd be pretty certain his son would prefer to sit in his normal spec. with people he has probably known for 5 years+ than with some twats in a box.
I'll row back on my comment. It was on the BBC this morning as they were running a live update on his interview, they used the word 'previously' but that live update is not up any more.
He normally only says 'I have been a season ticket holder for years'.
If he is still, who is using the season ticket? Are they using it for free?
Poor bloke only received £35,792 worth of football tickets during the last parliament.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I last went through Manchester Airport ten or more years ago, and I was only ever airside of security (on a weird stopping service by Flybe from Exeter to Edinburgh), and I had the distinct impression of a crowded, chaotic and poorly laid out terminal.
Edinburgh is superior, albeit it doesn't have to cope with as much traffic.
My favourite regional airport in the UK is Foula island. Which is literally a grass strip, and a small hut
Shetland has some weird tiny ones as well, and isn't there a beach airport in the Outer Hebrides
For actual airport airports, Newquay has a picayune charm, right by the Cornish cliffs
Barra is fun, particularly when the pilot delays takeoff to wait for some oystercatchers to get off the beach.
Then there's the famous Westray/Papa Westray. 2 minutes.
(Maybe this is why my reaction to Manchester is so visceral...)
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I was in Manchester in 2021 for Conference. Arriving at the airport for departure involve a queue hundreds of yards long to get thru security, which took well over a hour to get to the end. I had to run to the plane. So in that respect, yes it is that bad.
NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
It seems like Harris gets enthusiasm bumps from exposure (nomination, debate) but they subside. Joe Biden needs to start practicing his heart attack face so they can do an inauguration.
Scilly Airport on St Mary's is a dive out over the cliffs.
Nothing quite beats Madeira though....
Old Hong Kong?
Yes. Consigned to history though. Once tried to beat a typhoon - but had to abort to Taiwan at the last moment. 24 hours stuck in the plane at Taiwan meant the flight was the longest I have ever had without getting off the plane.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
Starmer also continues to pay for his Arsenal season ticket.
Does he then sell the seats through the Arsenal secondary market, recouping - IIRC - 80% of face?
He doesn't have a season ticket any more. It's another one of his vague lawyerly mistruths that he has allowed to continue, to let people use as reasoning to support his actions.
Any evidence of this ?
Most football fans hold on to season tickets like limpets particularly at the likes of Arsenal, United, Liverpool and even Everton, and which is why some season ticket holders at Liverpool are rumoured to have reached the ripe old age of 107
They can get face value back from the club without difficulty.
When he's left office and on the ex PM speech gravy train, I'd be pretty certain his son would prefer to sit in his normal spec. with people he has probably known for 5 years+ than with some twats in a box.
I'll row back on my comment. It was on the BBC this morning as they were running a live update on his interview, they used the word 'previously' but that live update is not up any more.
He normally only says 'I have been a season ticket holder for years'.
If he is still, who is using the season ticket? Are they using it for free?
Poor bloke only received £35,792 worth of football tickets during the last parliament.
I had a season ticket for years for Manchester United and wouldn't even have considered giving it up as it would take years to get another one
I haven't heard until you said it that Starmer has surrendered his ticket and frankly I do not believe he has
As far as him saying he has been a season ticket holder for years I would have said the same
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I last went through Manchester Airport ten or more years ago, and I was only ever airside of security (on a weird stopping service by Flybe from Exeter to Edinburgh), and I had the distinct impression of a crowded, chaotic and poorly laid out terminal.
Edinburgh is superior, albeit it doesn't have to cope with as much traffic.
My favourite regional airport in the UK is Foula island. Which is literally a grass strip, and a small hut
Shetland has some weird tiny ones as well, and isn't there a beach airport in the Outer Hebrides
For actual airport airports, Newquay has a picayune charm, right by the Cornish cliffs
Barra is fun, particularly when the pilot delays takeoff to wait for some oystercatchers to get off the beach.
Then there's the famous Westray/Papa Westray. 2 minutes.
(Maybe this is why my reaction to Manchester is so visceral...)
Brazzaville to Kinshasa is I believe the shortest international flight - about six minutes from the Republic of Congo to the DRC. Straight across the Congo river, which is about three or four miles wide at that point.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
City is horribly claustrophobic imo.
Agreed. Really cramped and terrible catering. It used to be great, I dunno what they've done
Luton is vastly improved, esp with the train shuttle
LHR is a great world airport, people are far too cruel about it
I agree some of the UK's regional airports are a disgrace. Glasgow is horrible. Exeter is dismal
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I was in Manchester in 2021 for Conference. Arriving at the airport for departure involve a queue hundreds of yards long to get thru security, which took well over a hour to get to the end. I had to run to the plane. So in that respect, yes it is that bad.
I can't remember a time when Manchester airport has been that great and that's with fast pass security and lounge access.
As I've said before given the choice I fly from Teesside via AMS - it's usually cheaper once you factor in airport parking costs elsewhere.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
Changi is the Robert Jenrick of airports. Try as I might, I just can't see the appeal.
Yes, passport control gave me a small boiled sweet, but I had to walk a huge distance in a very short time between connecting flights immediately after disembarking, which wasn't enjoyable.
I also dislike Dubai which some rave about.
Give me a medium-sized US airport with an on-site microbrewery every time.
Harris at 49% with likely voters with Yougov is now polling closer to Hillary's 48% in 2016 than Biden's 51% in 2020, yet still fractionally above what Hillary got.
Trump's 46% is the same as he got in 2016 and 2020 which suggests a tighter EC margin for Trump than 2016 if he wins and a tighter EC margin for Harris than Biden got in 2020 if she wins
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I was in Manchester in 2021 for Conference. Arriving at the airport for departure involve a queue hundreds of yards long to get thru security, which took well over a hour to get to the end. I had to run to the plane. So in that respect, yes it is that bad.
I can't remember a time when Manchester airport has been that great and that's with fast pass security and lounge access.
As I've said before given the choice I fly from Teesside via AMS - it's usually cheaper once you factor in airport parking costs elsewhere.
I find Schiphol crowded, chaotic and pricey, these days
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
I’ll give props to Southampton, which is basically LCY-on-Sea.
Props also being how most of the planes flying out of there derive their forward motion.
LHR’s third runway should have been completed at least a decade ago, and represents in one project the attitudes typical of UK infrastructure and why it’s impossible to JFDI.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
Changi is the Robert Jenrick of airports. Try as I might, I just can't see the appeal.
Yes, passport control gave me a small boiled sweet, but I had to walk a huge distance in a very short time between connecting flights immediately after disembarking, which wasn't enjoyable.
I also dislike Dubai which some rave about.
Give me a medium-sized US airport with an on-site microbrewery every time.
Yes, the oft-overlooked problem with these massive Gulf and Asian airports is they often come with enormous walks - 30 minutes to get to the gate etc. Which is not fun
For me the perfect airport is small, near its city, but ultra-modern, and with maybe three good bars and a good restaurant
If you must have a big world airport give it great connections to the city and lots of good bars and restos, cool lounges, and minimal walking. LHR is really pretty good for that. Better than CDG, JFK or LAX for instance
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
I was in Manchester in 2021 for Conference. Arriving at the airport for departure involve a queue hundreds of yards long to get thru security, which took well over a hour to get to the end. I had to run to the plane. So in that respect, yes it is that bad.
I can't remember a time when Manchester airport has been that great and that's with fast pass security and lounge access.
As I've said before given the choice I fly from Teesside via AMS - it's usually cheaper once you factor in airport parking costs elsewhere.
I find Schiphol crowded, chaotic and pricey, these days
It used to be a gem, not any more
Madrid Barajas is a much nicer hub
An utterly gorgeous redhead member of security at Schiphol once made me open a giant tube of Smarties, meant for my godson. And proceeded to eat all the orange ones.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
Changi is the Robert Jenrick of airports. Try as I might, I just can't see the appeal.
Yes, passport control gave me a small boiled sweet, but I had to walk a huge distance in a very short time between connecting flights immediately after disembarking, which wasn't enjoyable.
I also dislike Dubai which some rave about.
Give me a medium-sized US airport with an on-site microbrewery every time.
Yes, the oft-overlooked problem with these massive Gulf and Asian airports is they often come with enormous walks - 30 minutes to get to the gate etc. Which is not fun
For me the perfect airport is small, near its city, but ultra-modern, and with maybe three good bars and a good restaurant
If you must have a big world airport give it great connections to the city and lots of good bars and restos, cool lounges, and minimal walking. LHR is really pretty good for that. Better than CDG, JFK or LAX for instance
First time I went to Phnom Penh airport, it had just opened. It had one carousel and no walk was more than about fifty yards.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
City is horribly claustrophobic imo.
Agreed. Really cramped and terrible catering. It used to be great, I dunno what they've done
Luton is vastly improved, esp with the train shuttle
LHR is a great world airport, people are far too cruel about it
I agree some of the UK's regional airports are a disgrace. Glasgow is horrible. Exeter is dismal
For a tiny insight into how some other people travel, I once went from Heathrow to Plymouth by coach. At Heathrow bus station I bought a Styrofoam cup of horrible tea and a little packet of biscuits. In Plymouth I went into a cafe and bought an All day breakfast kind of meal. The All day breakfast cost less than the tea and biscuits at Heathrow bus station.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
Changi is the Robert Jenrick of airports. Try as I might, I just can't see the appeal.
Yes, passport control gave me a small boiled sweet, but I had to walk a huge distance in a very short time between connecting flights immediately after disembarking, which wasn't enjoyable.
I also dislike Dubai which some rave about.
Give me a medium-sized US airport with an on-site microbrewery every time.
Yes, the oft-overlooked problem with these massive Gulf and Asian airports is they often come with enormous walks - 30 minutes to get to the gate etc. Which is not fun
For me the perfect airport is small, near its city, but ultra-modern, and with maybe three good bars and a good restaurant
If you must have a big world airport give it great connections to the city and lots of good bars and restos, cool lounges, and minimal walking. LHR is really pretty good for that. Better than CDG, JFK or LAX for instance
First time I went to Phnom Penh airport, it had just opened. It had one carousel and no walk was more than about fifty yards.
Joyous. I suspect that has changed!
Not that much. It is still agreeably small, and they've speeded up the mad visa paying thing
The trouble now is the traffic from the airport to the city centre....
OT. I wouldn't look at specific polls @MarqueeMark seems to have done to determine the outcome of the race - CNN has Harris today at +1 nationally and Quinnipac has the race tied. So should we say Harris has a +6 lead or doesn't have a lead at all? That is even more the case with the state polls.
Probably better indicators are how consumers are feeling about specific topics and who would be best to fix them and that looks grim for Harris. Gallup had the GOP leading on 9 of the top 10 indicators and on the most important factors. Pew said the same recently.
If you also look at the trends that are happening in the polls (if you believe them), it seems like AZ and GA are moving slowly but surely to be considered strong possibilities for Trump. NC is more at risk because of Robinson but that may suggest what will happen next with this bid for Governor. PA is tied. WI is marginal Harris but the WI polls have tended to massively overstate the Democrats' lead in 2016 and 2020.
One final point - you might want to consider that high-profile Democrat Governors like Shapiro, Whitmer, Pritzker and Newsom have not exactly been banging the drum at 100% volume for Harris. There are a lot of big Democrat names who would see a Harris victory in 2024 as a block to their Presidential bids in 2028.
If (as seems probable right now), Trump picks up Arizona and Georgia, that puts him on 259 EC votes. That leaves Pennsylvania as the key.
Not sure anything is "probable right now" in the US election. The extent to which registrations are racing ahead of normal rates leaves huge questions as to whether polling companies are making corrections for this. Those with bigger leads for Harris might be. But nobody is saying.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
You can’t be in opposition for 14 years, criticising the Tories for accepting ‘gifts’, and certain privileges, then act surprised when the public call you out for doing the same thing. From Angela Rayner’s ‘But everybody does it’ excuse, to Starmer saying ‘It was the right thing to do’, Labour needs to sort their shit out ASAP, because as Honeymoon periods go, this one has been an absolute car crash.
Labour are being criticised for things that they DIDN’T criticise the Tories for.
I'd say the closest equivalent under the Tories was wallpapergate. Which they absolutely ripped into the Tories for.
Another reminder that wallpapergate (in which actual money changed hands) is not what brought Boris down.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
I’ll give props to Southampton, which is basically LCY-on-Sea.
Props also being how most of the planes flying out of there derive their forward motion.
LHR’s third runway should have been completed at least a decade ago, and represents in one project the attitudes typical of UK infrastructure and why it’s impossible to JFDI.
"Props also being how most of the planes flying out of there derive their forward motion. "
So is it - by
1) A big horse harness 2) The UK's aircraft carriers lending a hand 3) The endless updraft of the Southampton mayors laughter than people have thought this was London 4) The passengers peddling after having experienced Southampton
It's going to be one of those I'm sure.
Edit: I just read this as props to and thought it was a quiz
The video was broadcast on BBC One at 7 p.m, 13th December. Five days prior to Starmer’s message the government announced the entirety of England would be moved to Plan B rules in response to the fast spread of Omicron. According to the regulations those who could were meant to work from home. ‘Mr Rules’ even said in the video message:
“It will be easy to let the festivities we’ve all been looking forward to divert us from our national duty. Getting jabbed, wearing masks, and working from home if we can really will help prevent infections and help prevent the NHS being overwhelmed.”
Guido’s not sure working from home rules included working from someone else’s home. Must have been nice to head up to the massive roof terrace after that was done though…
Flew to Singapore from Manchester, having been diverted from Heathrow.
Singapore is in a class of its own. Transfer from terminals in each of the three airports is mind boggling different.
Singapore, you can walk or take a convenient free monorail through a water fountain. Heathrow you have to go up and down several lifts before catching the Elizabeth line, taking baggage off trolleys. Manchester you’re wheeling a trolley outside in the elements through a dodgy car park.
Singapore is amazing, although the assistance customer service by BA in London was the best anywhere
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
You can’t be in opposition for 14 years, criticising the Tories for accepting ‘gifts’, and certain privileges, then act surprised when the public call you out for doing the same thing. From Angela Rayner’s ‘But everybody does it’ excuse, to Starmer saying ‘It was the right thing to do’, Labour needs to sort their shit out ASAP, because as Honeymoon periods go, this one has been an absolute car crash.
Labour are being criticised for things that they DIDN’T criticise the Tories for.
That's because the Tories didn't empty the prisons of thieving little scrotes so they could fill them with Facebook warriors.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
When I wake up I remember them quite vividly but many I rapidly forget. I do remember the odd one or two. Probably one in every ten.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
Do you have aphantasia? It's such an odd thing, my sympathies
I met a girl in Colombia who has it. She told me she cannot remember the face of her boyfriend if he's not there with her. Nor can she picture a dog in her mind if you say "picture a dog in your mind"
This was particularly striking because we were all in Colombia to take ayahuasca and her boyfriend is one of the top scientists in the world investigating psychedelics
Everyone had a mad trip with insane hallucinations, apart from her, she experienced nothing. She ascribed that to her aphantasia...
HMG admit 37 early release prisoners were incorrectly released and should not have been released from prison
out of 1700 released prisoners so it's a 2% screw up rate.
In the scheme of such things that isn't that bad..
Analogously it means that for every full Airbus A380 about 14 passengers have managed to get guns and knives through security. I have no problem with that.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
When I wake up I remember them quite vividly but many I rapidly forget. I do remember the odd one or two. Probably one in every ten.
I can't remember the dream after a minute - but sometimes, if it is a bad one, an odd feeling persists all day.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
When I wake up I remember them quite vividly but many I rapidly forget. I do remember the odd one or two. Probably one in every ten.
My wife remembers a lot more of her dreams then I do of mine, but she somehow doesn't remember the ones in which she wakes me up due to some in-dream emergency that she expresses out loud.
"Quick! We've got to get out!"
It's not really the way you want to wake up at 3am in the morning, but she was instantly back asleep.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
Have you seen the For God's Sake FOR GOD'S SAKE vid yet?
What donations will he be defending in the next interview? Tune in next week for another thrilling installment.
One of his problems is he immediately gets defensive and prickly, and refuses to take questions, and that makes him look even guiltier, and he is completely devoid of charm, smarm or humour
Blair would have said Shucks, sorry, ah well, and smiled, and you'd warm to him anyway; Boris would have blustered then told a joke and distracted everyone (tho he ran out of jokes in the end)
This is at the BEGINNING of Starmer's premiership and he looks like an exhausted batsman who has been at the crease all day and is now wearily fending off the bowling
What's more, Beth Rigby didn't even ask him the obvious, punitive question: "Prime Minister, you say you claimed this flat for your son's GCSEs, but the dates don't match, those exams finished nearly a month before you handed the flat back. What did you really use the flat for?"
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
I never remembered a dream for years but recently, for medical reasons, I've been sleeping in a sitting-up position in which I have many dreams, so maybe Keir Starmer uses only one pillow.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
When I wake up I remember them quite vividly but many I rapidly forget. I do remember the odd one or two. Probably one in every ten.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
It seems to me the most anyone can claim is that they never remember dreams. I rarely remember dreams. Also I have no visual imagination (I think it's called aphantasia) which may be why I rarely remember dreams. But not remembering isn't not dreaming.
When I wake up I remember them quite vividly but many I rapidly forget. I do remember the odd one or two. Probably one in every ten.
A pedant enquires ....
How do you know it's 10 if you don't remember?
You can be aware you've dreamed, and be unable to recall any detail. That's me most of the time, too.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
Prefab housing, built in factories and trucked to site for final assembly. 3-bed house costs £100k, plus the land and site works.
The obstacles are that they need to be either mortgageable, or buyable by housing associations or public sector on the basis of a 50-year lifespan.
That's always been in place afaik.
eg SPACE 4 are a recent incarnation who have been doing it since 2001, and have a factory capacity of 8000 units per annum.
I talked to them about it back in 200x when I was looking at a site. One advantage is that it is weatherproof within days.
Here's a piccie of similar techniques being applied to putting an upstairs on a bungalow (I think iirc):
It was by a company called Modular Loft something, and I wrote some dofferel about it:
As I was planning for my toft I met a man with a Modular Loft Windows were installed and tiles With insulation, floors and style Windows, Lift, Loft, Tiles Make an instant ancient pile! A extraordinarily transportable loft - But do I want one for my toft?
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
Have you seen the For God's Sake FOR GOD'S SAKE vid yet?
Yes, but in response to the glitter attack, I thought that was a relatively human response - shock, annoyance, disgust.
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
Have you seen the For God's Sake FOR GOD'S SAKE vid yet?
I'm trying to be balanced and say something nice about Labour. I find it very very hard. What good have they done, yet?
If they build nice neo-Georgian houses I will feel a lot better; likewise if they accept the new EU youth Free Movement offer, which I think is generous
Right now the nicest thing I can say is Mrs Starmer is genuinely pretty, but that's somewhat double-edged
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
Have you seen the For God's Sake FOR GOD'S SAKE vid yet?
Yes, but in response to the glitter attack, I thought that was a relatively human response - shock, annoyance, disgust.
Oh, sorry Rachel..
I though it was when she saw that her Taylor Swift seats weren't front row
There was some twit on radio 4 a year or two ago who pretended to mispronounce Jeremy Hunt's surname with a C. The twittery being that this just doesn't happen: we don't store words as strings according to initial letter or concluding syllable and so we don't dip into a folder of *unt words and accidentally come up with the wrong one.
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
"Sausage" was a weird weird mistake. Not sure I agree with your diagnosis, or understand it, but it was ODD
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I've started to feel a bit sorry for Reeves. I see her more as a loyal Labourite than anything else. She was asked to be the iron chancellor, now she's being asked to be the sunny chancellor, and she's gamely having a bash.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
Have you seen the For God's Sake FOR GOD'S SAKE vid yet?
Yes, but in response to the glitter attack, I thought that was a relatively human response - shock, annoyance, disgust.
Yes, I first posted this and thought it was from this year. It is not. It is from the glitter attack and in that context it is entirely understandable
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
Manchester isn't very good: it's like the old Terminal 2 at Heathrow, before they tore it down and rebuilt it. It feels stale and tired, and it hasn't been particularly well maintained.
But at the same time, it's a regional airport, so what the hell does he expect?
And compared to some of the regional airports in the US, it's superb.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
All of our airports except LCY are shit compared to Changi or middle eastern ones. As with most infrastructure in the UK there's been far too little investment and far too much shareholder dividends. Heathrow generates so much cash that it should be world class and have £4-5bn in the bank ready for the third runway but instead anyone who doesn't fly from T2 or T5 gets a depressing experience through a long security queue and a bunch of shite airside. Greedy shareholders are the bane of regulated UK industry from water to airports to energy generation.
City is horribly claustrophobic imo.
Agreed. Really cramped and terrible catering. It used to be great, I dunno what they've done
Luton is vastly improved, esp with the train shuttle
LHR is a great world airport, people are far too cruel about it
I agree some of the UK's regional airports are a disgrace. Glasgow is horrible. Exeter is dismal
That's a shame, I haven't flown from there for a while because corporate HQ was in Japan so no flights. It used to be brilliant, airside in under 15 mins, decent selection of bars and not too crowded with pointless shops.
Heathrow is only good if you're flying from T2 or T5. If you're in 3 or 4 it's dire. They need to invest and refurb or rebuild T4 completely and expand T2 enough so they can dump T3 entirely.
NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
Starmer also continues to pay for his Arsenal season ticket.
Does he then sell the seats through the Arsenal secondary market, recouping - IIRC - 80% of face?
He doesn't have a season ticket any more. It's another one of his vague lawyerly mistruths that he has allowed to continue, to let people use as reasoning to support his actions.
Any evidence of this ?
Most football fans hold on to season tickets like limpets particularly at the likes of Arsenal, United, Liverpool and even Everton, and which is why some season ticket holders at Liverpool are rumoured to have reached the ripe old age of 107
They can get face value back from the club without difficulty.
When he's left office and on the ex PM speech gravy train, I'd be pretty certain his son would prefer to sit in his normal spec. with people he has probably known for 5 years+ than with some twats in a box.
That's not true of Arsenal. I joined the season ticket waiting list in 2008 and got one in 2013. If you joined the list now, you're not going to be getting one any time soon. Point is, it all depends on the perception of the fans. At the moment, they've "got their Arsenal back". A bad season and we'll be back to loads of empty seats and it impossible to sell on the exchange.
I'm still on the waiting list to graduate from Red to Silver membership.
In this morning's discussion about the £300k mortgage for a couple earning £50k did anyone mention that would be a property price higher than the national average for people barely earning above minimum wage.
But everybody who wants to buy a house under the age of 25 *must* have a 3-bed semi or better.
Its perfectly possible in large parts of the country as well.
Leave school at 18, get a job, learn a skillset and at 25 they'll be earning £30k or more, have savings and no debt.
Then buy a 3 bed semi for £200k with a 10% deposit and a 3x mortgage.
Now that wont suit everyone's life plans but everyone has to make their own choices.
It's not that easy to have saved £30k - a whole year's pretax income - by the time you're 25, especially as you won't be starting on £30k, you'll be starting on £15-20k.
If you are living at home it might be doable, but if you're in shared accommodation, then you're going to be clearing at most £1,500/month (at £20k) and spending at least £500 of that on accommodation and bills. Even if you are able to save 20% of your post tax, post rent and bills income, you will struggle to save more than £2,400 in a year.
Getting to £30k of savings is not impossible, but does requires iron discipline and a very high savings rate.
So no avocados is what I'm hearing.
The deposit is pretty much the reason why all the "well, if government policy forces landlords to sell up, that's good for renters" arguments fall flat.
It's great if you're in a position to save for a 30k deposit (few are), it's even better if you've got family who can stump up the deposit (so, generational wealth).
If you don't have that ability, the war on landlords just means the pool of renters who are unable to buy are competing for a diminishing number of properties at ever higher prices, with the ever increasing regulatory burdens and red tape tacked onto the price of the rental.
We are at a point where the rental trap is more or less impossible to escape without family help, entrenching a two-tier system where those who are able to tap into generational wealth can get on the property ladder, while those without are screwed in perpetuity.
What on earth happens to the houses the landlords are selling? Either go to other landlords or renters. If they are left empty or second homes, tax them punitively. The houses don't disappear because amateur landlord can't make their business work.
Are you completely blind, or just thick as a whale omelette?
As I stated above, landlords selling up is great for those who can afford a 30k deposit.
It kinda sucks for renters who can't.
May I suggest visiting a popular optician for some reading glasses?
Unless the quantity of houses changes landlords selling up has next-to-zero effect on renters.
If a landlord sells to someone who was a tenant then the supply of landlords houses goes down by 1 and the demand for houses from tenants goes down by one so there is absolutely zero net change in supply versus demand.
Want to affect supply and demand - build more houses.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum, renters tend to occupy more of a property than owners. E.g. a young couple buy a house together, having formerly lived in bedrooms in two fully occupied houses of multiple occupancy, buy a two bed flat with a spare bedroom, thus reducing occupancy levels. This diminishes the pool of rooms available to renters. This has been discussed on this site innumerable times.
As has been discussed on here ad infinitum that statistic is total bullshit as it just measures age. Controlling for age there is no significant difference whatsoever.
Owner occupiers, especially owner occupiers without a mortgage, are disproportionately elderly people without children living with them as their children have moved out of the house.
A young couple renting a home or buying a home of their own has no net change in housing supply.
My daughter and husband 53 and 64 have I year left on their mortgage and my youngest son 49 and his wife 42 have paid off their mortgage so they do not fit your profile
And my daughter has their 15 year son living with them and my son and his wife have 3 children 12, 10 and 2
I would add that neither had inheritance but a lot of middle age parents do inherit money and pay off their mortgage
Your daughter and husband are old.
Your youngest is old.
People should be able to get a home in their 20s or 30s, people in their fifties aren't especially relevant to the conversation other than saying that it was affordable for them to get homes decades ago which isn't the case for far too many today.
49 is old ?
The average age for a first time buyer is 34
Our son and daughter bought their homes in the last 20 - 25 years which is similar to the average age today
Yes it is.
49 is a generation past people who should be looking for homes today, 25 years ago is a totally different era. 25 years ago the average house price in Wales was £51k - to compare 25 years ago with today just shows how broken today is.
49 is well past the age where the NHS warns about dangers for pregnancies. For people to safely settle down, have a family, in their own home, they need to be buying homes in their 20s, early 30s at the latest.
And the average 34 year old today does not own their own home, the average age you're quoting is distorted by excluding those who don't get a home which is far, far, far too many people - way more than it used to be.
Wages in 2000 were £18,800 compared to £35,800 today
However, affordability does depend on location and even today they are homes available to buy in our area between £130,000 and £180,000
I understand you are frustrated about home ownership but the only solution is more homes as you say, but building regulations requirements of net zero compliance have added to the costs.
I understand that the government is to mandate the renting of all homes or sale will require those homes to have a C rating or above which again will cause huge increases in prices as homes are retrofitted
Indeed the Welsh government are about to mandate EV charging points on all homes for rent or sale
This is a complex and difficult problem to resolve but it is not the fault of those who have bought and paid off their mortgages
I really don't think we should accept the building industry propaganda about not being able to improve the quality of housing without massive additional costs. We should expect them to be able to increase productivity to deliver higher quality housing at a lower price.
Prefab housing, built in factories and trucked to site for final assembly. 3-bed house costs £100k, plus the land and site works.
The obstacles are that they need to be either mortgageable, or buyable by housing associations or public sector on the basis of a 50-year lifespan.
That's always been in place afaik.
eg SPACE 4 are a recent incarnation who have been doing it since 2001, and have a factory capacity of 8000 units per annum.
I talked to them about it back in 200x when I was looking at a site. One advantage is that it is weatherproof within days.
Here's a piccie of similar techniques being applied to putting an upstairs on a bungalow (I think iirc):
It was by a company called Modular Loft something, and I wrote some dofferel about it:
As I was planning for my toft I met a man with a Modular Loft Windows were installed and tiles With insulation, floors and style Windows, Lift, Loft, Tiles Make an instant ancient pile! A extraordinarily transportable loft - But do I want one for my toft?
What donations will he be defending in the next interview? Tune in next week for another thrilling installment.
One of his problems is he immediately gets defensive and prickly, and refuses to take questions, and that makes him look even guiltier, and he is completely devoid of charm, smarm or humour
His being bad under cross-examination is a sort of karma I suppose.
This is going viral on TwiX. Is it true? I have never used Manc airport
"The experience of arriving at Manchester Airport from Singapore is the nearest we can get to experiencing actual time travel from the future to the past, or to approximate viscerally the feeling of what it was like to return to East Germany from the West"
Two points. He is comparing it to Changi which is probably the best airport in the world, and in one of the richest cities in the world. And I went through Edinburgh airport recently and I thought it was OK for a regional European airport, about the same as you'd get in Spain or Germany, a bit less flash than France
But is Manc really that bad?
Manchester isn't very good: it's like the old Terminal 2 at Heathrow, before they tore it down and rebuilt it. It feels stale and tired, and it hasn't been particularly well maintained.
But at the same time, it's a regional airport, so what the hell does he expect?
And compared to some of the regional airports in the US, it's superb.
Manchester's generally on the up and is being seen more and more as England's second city, so maybe it would be a good place for showcase airport.
NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
Starmer also continues to pay for his Arsenal season ticket.
Does he then sell the seats through the Arsenal secondary market, recouping - IIRC - 80% of face?
He doesn't have a season ticket any more. It's another one of his vague lawyerly mistruths that he has allowed to continue, to let people use as reasoning to support his actions.
Any evidence of this ?
Most football fans hold on to season tickets like limpets particularly at the likes of Arsenal, United, Liverpool and even Everton, and which is why some season ticket holders at Liverpool are rumoured to have reached the ripe old age of 107
They can get face value back from the club without difficulty.
When he's left office and on the ex PM speech gravy train, I'd be pretty certain his son would prefer to sit in his normal spec. with people he has probably known for 5 years+ than with some twats in a box.
I'll row back on my comment. It was on the BBC this morning as they were running a live update on his interview, they used the word 'previously' but that live update is not up any more.
He normally only says 'I have been a season ticket holder for years'.
If he is still, who is using the season ticket? Are they using it for free?
Poor bloke only received £35,792 worth of football tickets during the last parliament.
Errr: he will simply sell the tickets back to the Club, which takes about 20 seconds to do.
NB. It seems the whole “Starmer is getting a box at Arsenal for free” is something of a misunderstanding - he’s being seated in the Director’s box, alongside all the other guests. The Director’s box is a) huge and b) invitation only, which presumably allows his security to vet the guest list. Similarly Sunak was seated in the Director’s box when he attended Southampton matches I believe.
Much of the Starmer freebies story is a massive own goal of spectacular proportions, but this one seems reasonable?
Starmer also continues to pay for his Arsenal season ticket.
Does he then sell the seats through the Arsenal secondary market, recouping - IIRC - 80% of face?
He doesn't have a season ticket any more. It's another one of his vague lawyerly mistruths that he has allowed to continue, to let people use as reasoning to support his actions.
Any evidence of this ?
Most football fans hold on to season tickets like limpets particularly at the likes of Arsenal, United, Liverpool and even Everton, and which is why some season ticket holders at Liverpool are rumoured to have reached the ripe old age of 107
They can get face value back from the club without difficulty.
When he's left office and on the ex PM speech gravy train, I'd be pretty certain his son would prefer to sit in his normal spec. with people he has probably known for 5 years+ than with some twats in a box.
I'll row back on my comment. It was on the BBC this morning as they were running a live update on his interview, they used the word 'previously' but that live update is not up any more.
He normally only says 'I have been a season ticket holder for years'.
If he is still, who is using the season ticket? Are they using it for free?
Poor bloke only received £35,792 worth of football tickets during the last parliament.
Errr: he will simply sell the tickets back to the Club, which takes about 20 seconds to do.
Comments
He normally only says 'I have been a season ticket holder for years'.
If he is still, who is using the season ticket? Are they using it for free?
Poor bloke only received £35,792 worth of football tickets during the last parliament.
Then there's the famous Westray/Papa Westray. 2 minutes.
(Maybe this is why my reaction to Manchester is so visceral...)
Nothing quite beats Madeira though....
Registered voters Harris 47% Trump 44% Stein 1% Other 1%
Likely voters Harris 49% Trump 46% Stein 1% Other 1%
https://d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net/documents/econTabReport_YtkV7hy.pdf
Trump, in contrast, is pretty much steady at -9.5: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/polls/favorability/donald-trump/
Harris's lead has softened slightly in voting intentions but these numbers are peculiarly vulnerable to the production of polls such as Rasmussen.
Do I take it that this enthusiasm is different from favourability?
It is quite hairy in windy weather - ie 97% of the time
I haven't heard until you said it that Starmer has surrendered his ticket and frankly I do not believe he has
As far as him saying he has been a season ticket holder for years I would have said the same
Luton is vastly improved, esp with the train shuttle
LHR is a great world airport, people are far too cruel about it
I agree some of the UK's regional airports are a disgrace. Glasgow is horrible. Exeter is dismal
As I've said before given the choice I fly from Teesside via AMS - it's usually cheaper once you factor in airport parking costs elsewhere.
Changi is the Robert Jenrick of airports. Try as I might, I just can't see the appeal.
Yes, passport control gave me a small boiled sweet, but I had to walk a huge distance in a very short time between connecting flights immediately after disembarking, which wasn't enjoyable.
I also dislike Dubai which some rave about.
Give me a medium-sized US airport with an on-site microbrewery every time.
Trump's 46% is the same as he got in 2016 and 2020 which suggests a tighter EC margin for Trump than 2016 if he wins and a tighter EC margin for Harris than Biden got in 2020 if she wins
It used to be a gem, not any more
Madrid Barajas is a much nicer hub
Props also being how most of the planes flying out of there derive their forward motion.
LHR’s third runway should have been completed at least a decade ago, and represents in one project the attitudes typical of UK infrastructure and why it’s impossible to JFDI.
Eta - so long as he leaves his pager at home
For me the perfect airport is small, near its city, but ultra-modern, and with maybe three good bars and a good restaurant
If you must have a big world airport give it great connections to the city and lots of good bars and restos, cool lounges, and minimal walking. LHR is really pretty good for that. Better than CDG, JFK or LAX for instance
I really didn't mind one bit.
Joyous. I suspect that has changed!
The trouble now is the traffic from the airport to the city centre....
There's probably a secret book of them
Starmer is emotionally colourblind. Duck and luck are for most of us black and white words while fuck is lit up in neon. And there's as big a difference between sausage and hostage. These are not to most of us just character strings with a 43% overlap. A frightened captive human being and a high fat gristle tube are in different folders, as separate and differently coloured as the duck and fuck folders. Picking one by mistake for the other is not a human mistake.
To be human is to dream. Dreams let us process and make emotional sense of life. Starmer shockingly claims not to dream. Sausage and hostage to him are just character strings.
He is plainly good enough at mimicking human to get by at least in the stilted worlds of law and the labour party. Labour tends to promote such people - Brown, Miliband. The key to understanding Starmer is to see that he is what "does not speak human" really looks like.
In the scheme of such things that isn't that bad..
Cameron Poe: On any other day, that might seem strange.
So why did he stick photos of his children in another mans house when making his covid video in Dec 21?
Happy to use them as a prop when needed.
So is it - by
1) A big horse harness
2) The UK's aircraft carriers lending a hand
3) The endless updraft of the Southampton mayors laughter than people have thought this was London
4) The passengers peddling after having experienced Southampton
It's going to be one of those I'm sure.
Edit: I just read this as props to and thought it was a quiz
Singapore is in a class of its own. Transfer from terminals in each of the three airports is mind boggling different.
Singapore, you can walk or take a convenient free monorail through a water fountain.
Heathrow you have to go up and down several lifts before catching the Elizabeth line, taking baggage off trolleys.
Manchester you’re wheeling a trolley outside in the elements through a dodgy car park.
Singapore is amazing, although the assistance customer service by BA in London was the best anywhere
Reeves is arguably even eerier. Check her out here
"I’ve never seen a human that talks and moves like this. It’s very hard to believe she’s real at this point."
https://x.com/nickdixoncomic/status/1838373649499185509
I think she's been told to smile, to dispel the "doom and gloom". It's about as effective as the time they told Gordon Brown to smile
I have had several inmate patients cancel appointments these last weeks as too few staff for escort duty.
I met a girl in Colombia who has it. She told me she cannot remember the face of her boyfriend if he's not there with her. Nor can she picture a dog in her mind if you say "picture a dog in your mind"
This was particularly striking because we were all in Colombia to take ayahuasca and her boyfriend is one of the top scientists in the world investigating psychedelics
Everyone had a mad trip with insane hallucinations, apart from her, she experienced nothing. She ascribed that to her aphantasia...
Do these people have any idea what the Lebanese think of Hezbollah?
Of course not; they just hate Jews and want Israel destroyed
Is there a word for people who want Israel destroyed?
Anti-Zionist doesn't really do it justice for me, even though it's what Anti-Zionist means
Any two-state-solutionists are Zionists; you all want Israel to exist. Is being anti you enough to suggest that one wants Israel to no longer exist?
PM defends taking £20k GCSE donation
https://news.sky.com/video/share-13221964
"Quick! We've got to get out!"
It's not really the way you want to wake up at 3am in the morning, but she was instantly back asleep.
Starmer, I don’t feel sorry for. At all.
https://x.com/saulstaniforth/status/1838886518720479560
Blair would have said Shucks, sorry, ah well, and smiled, and you'd warm to him anyway; Boris would have blustered then told a joke and distracted everyone (tho he ran out of jokes in the end)
This is at the BEGINNING of Starmer's premiership and he looks like an exhausted batsman who has been at the crease all day and is now wearily fending off the bowling
What's more, Beth Rigby didn't even ask him the obvious, punitive question: "Prime Minister, you say you claimed this flat for your son's GCSEs, but the dates don't match, those exams finished nearly a month before you handed the flat back. What did you really use the flat for?"
How do you know it's 10 if you don't remember?
It's ridiculous that he took free clothes and all the rest of it. (Although I do think the football stuff is ok.)
We need to look at the laws so that attempted bribery of an MP gets you locked up.
That's me most of the time, too.
Bret Baier: Trump, not Harris, the ‘holdup’ on Fox News debate
https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4898291-bret-baier-trump-not-harris-debate-holdup-fox-news/
Scared to debate on Fox.
eg SPACE 4 are a recent incarnation who have been doing it since 2001, and have a factory capacity of 8000 units per annum.
I talked to them about it back in 200x when I was looking at a site. One advantage is that it is weatherproof within days.
Here's a piccie of similar techniques being applied to putting an upstairs on a bungalow (I think iirc):
It was by a company called Modular Loft something, and I wrote some dofferel about it:
As I was planning for my toft
I met a man with a Modular Loft
Windows were installed and tiles
With insulation, floors and style
Windows, Lift, Loft, Tiles
Make an instant ancient pile!
A extraordinarily transportable loft -
But do I want one for my toft?
Lots more photos: https://forum.buildhub.org.uk/blogs/entry/496-what-about-a-modular-loft/
Jack Elsom
@JackElsom
No10 say they are confident Starmer did not break lockdown rules with this.
If they build nice neo-Georgian houses I will feel a lot better; likewise if they accept the new EU youth Free Movement offer, which I think is generous
Right now the nicest thing I can say is Mrs Starmer is genuinely pretty, but that's somewhat double-edged
Israel preparing for possible ground offensive in Lebanon, military chief says
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/25/israel-hezbollah-beirut-tel-aviv-lebanon-cross-border-conflict-expands
I though it was when she saw that her Taylor Swift seats weren't front row
But at the same time, it's a regional airport, so what the hell does he expect?
And compared to some of the regional airports in the US, it's superb.
Heathrow is only good if you're flying from T2 or T5. If you're in 3 or 4 it's dire. They need to invest and refurb or rebuild T4 completely and expand T2 enough so they can dump T3 entirely.
True, on the votes of 17.5% of UK adults