I’m getting a different vibe from the last week of this campaign, than from previous few weeks. It certainly feels like the actual argument clearly won, if not the election. Will it amount to anything, or too late - the whole last two months of campaigning needed to be as good as the last week had been for Harris, to have made a difference?
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
A cost pressure on your Trust budget but not on the govt budget as the money is recycled. So the government is choosing to put pay restraint on the trust. We can argue this one either way without it being wrong, it is a matter of perspective and exactly whose budget is considered.
I suspect ni increases is unlikely to put pay restraint on any public sector body
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
It's a variation on class war, only the favoured class is the public sector employee
I don't want to hear any justifications for the Employer NIC increases from public sector employees; they don't affect your employer's wage bill at all
Thats simply not true, all employers pay NICS, public and private.
The employers NIC rise will impact all public sector budgets, from binmen to High Court judges. It will be quite a cost pressure on my Trust.
The state pays their wages; the state gets all of the tax increase directly back
But it does come out of the budget of the relevant department. Of course, there will be a corresponding increase in revenue at the exchequer.
And they've been doling out massive wage hikes to public sector employees, before announcing that they're cancelling them for the private sector
It's a form of class war: public sector versus private sector
"Stanford Medicine-led study shows why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disease
Research throws light on the mystery of why women are much more prone to autoimmune disorders: A molecule made by one X chromosome in every female cell can generate antibodies to a woman’s own tissues."
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Britain is not constrained by Congress. When Starmer went to him to ask for permission for British weapons to be used against Russian targets, Biden said no. How do you square that with your belief that he is being held back by the GOP?
Because Britain is weak, and how much it will do without american permission is limited, though Boris did seem to do a good job being a booster for Ukraine, I wish he had spent more time doing so after his ousting.
That wasn't the question. If Biden is champing at the bit to do more for Ukraine but is constrained by Congress and the GOP, why wouldn't he jump at the chance to bypass them?
I don't think Biden wants to go as far as Britain and others do on this subject, probably due to his own intelligence and military assessments. Two things can, however be true. He is constrained somewhat, without that explaining all his foot dragging. And that is still a lot more than the opposition is suggesting it will do.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
It is definitely the right idea - we have to save the community pub. But too little. Needs to be a serious differential. Like 20p.
Scoop: Blockchain researchers have found evidence of rampant wash trading on the leading electoral betting site Polymarket, with Chaos Labs concluding that one-third of volume on its presidential market is likely artificial
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
It’s extraordinary how unimpacted our lives have been, while we’ve expected Ukrainians to bleed and die with one hand behind their back, all in the name of depleting Russia’s Soviet stockpiles.
You seem to believe that we are forcing the Ukranians to unwillingly fight to serve our goals. It seems to me that they are desperately fighting to serve their goals: specifically clean water, warm houses, good food, not-raped women and not-murdered children.
We are forcing them to fight without the means to achieve their goals, but with the requirement to achieve ours. Namely the slow attrition of Soviet stockpiles and harm to Russian demographics, at the cost of thousands upon thousands of non-NATO lives. I’m amazed how many here can’t see this. Western startegy in this war has been the ultimate in real politik for some time now.
I don't think that's the policy. I think that Biden does not want Ukraine to lose, and he is scared of what happens if Russia loses.
His hope has been that eventually Russia will conclude that they should stop sending more soldiers into the meatgrinder, and that Ukraine can be persuaded to accept a ceasefire at that point. But Russia has proven to be much more determined, and able to sustain a long war, than most people had anticipated. So his strategy has failed.
It's still better than Trump's strategy, which is to force Ukraine into defeat. Trump is even more scared, or unwilling to countenance the very possibility, of Russian defeat, but he doesn't give a cobblers about Ukraine's survival. So Biden's policy is superior to Trump's in that respect.
The alternative, arguably Johnsonian, policy, is to push wholeheartedly for Ukraine's victory.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
It will be a peace which will be about as meaningful as the infamous 'piece of paper'
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh, I missed the increase in tax on my drinking..
At least the fuckers can't tax walking
Wanna bet? If Mr Poophole is consistent and his argument is based on logic you should have a helmet, a number plate and insurance.
1, because it will stop motor vehicle drivers on their mobile phones from turning you into a KSI.
2, because pedestrians commit more crimes than cyclists (eg robberies), and it will mean we can catch you. Doesn't seem to work for cars, however.
3, just in case you dent a bumper or bonnet when you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation, and try to pretend you are the injured party.
If he is is consistent he also needs to be demanding helmets for drivers of motor vehicles, and no glass in vehicle windows so they can hear other people coming - to match up to his demands on headphones for people on cycles or Shank's Pony.
Gotta love the Daily Mail hyperbolic language. It's like Dickens describing having to enter the workhouse...
"From 2027, the value of pensions pots will be included in estates and caught in the net of inheritance taxes. This means thousands of grieving families will be dragged into paying the dreaded death duty for the first time at a rate of 40 per cent."
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
Isn’t that up to them
We appear to be back at February 2022 arguments in relation to the war, regrettably.
Everyone here is surprisingly casual about the leak that the CIA upped their assessment of nuclear exchange in autumn 2022 to 50%. You can’t just sit there and pretend that didn’t happen. Now you might conclude (with the benefit of far less info than them) that they got it completely wrong. But what you cannot deny is the political impact that assessment has had in the US.
Biden was not going to change his policy of containment and a bloody war of attrition, with the goal of no clear winner. And unless I’ve missed it, Harris has said absolutely nothing to suggest her policy would be different. So should Ukraine broker a fragile peace with sub optimal boundaries now? Or strike a likely fairly similar deal some period down the line, with tens of thousands of additional dead?
I don’t know anyone living in Ukraine but I suspect this is a conversation that is being quietly whispered. A shame Leon is banned, he might have useful insight after his recent visits.
You’re getting this arse about face.
Ukraine is not the aggressor, here. Ukraine is not waging war against a Russia that seeks peace.
Russia could have had peace, at any point in the past two years and nine months. Ergo, Russia is not seeking peace.
Yes I think we can all agree that the country that invaded and has committed daily acts of genocide has not sought peace. The point rather is that they have not been compelled into seeking a peace, because the economic and military response from the west (principally the office of the US president but not them alone) has not been strong enough.
This discussion started because idiots are backing Trump over Ukraine whist pretending to support Ukraine. A Trump victory would mean support for Ukraine would be far weaker, and probably even non-existent.
So yes, Biden hasn't been as strong on Ukraine as he could have been, for bad and good reasons. But the idea that Trump would be better is delusional.
william is basically arguing that because Biden is less than perfect on Ukraine (true), then we should allow Trump to sell them out to Putin.
Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
There are multiple reasons why I wouldn't purchase a Tesla
Elon is one, the fact you can't open a door manually in an emergency is another..
A brief look online suggests there is an emergency release mechanism.
Good luck trying to remember how to find and trigger it in an actual emergency..
We always have a tool for smashing windows in the drivers door pocket. Only used it once - not our car but someone’s keys were locked in and they didn’t want to wait for the aa…
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
It will be a peace which will be about as meaningful as the infamous 'piece of paper'
Worse, it wouldn't be a peace. It would be an occupation, and we saw in Bucha and Kherson what that involves.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
Why does anyone give a shit what the sex abuser had to say ?
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
This is a pretty big story from the world of finance.
Car dealerships in chaos as shock ruling leaves market at risk of collapse
Lenders pause vehicle loans as forecourts face dramatic rethink of sales practices
Britain’s biggest banks and lenders are scrambling to avoid a collapse in the car sales market after a shock court judgement prompted chaos at forecourts across the country.
A ruling from the Court of Appeal on commissions paid to car salesmen has forced several lenders to pause loans, and dealerships to urgently revise their sales practices to avoid a paralysis in the market.
Lloyds Bank, one of the UK’s largest motor financiers through its Black Horse arm, became the latest lender to revamp its practices by abolishing bonuses paid to car dealers.
The bank has introduced a “no commission” contract, meaning no fees will be paid to dealerships.
William Chalmers, Lloyds’s chief of finance, held an urgent call with investors last night to explain the situation, saying it wanted to stand by its customers and the UK economy to carry on lending.
Car finance is the biggest source of funding used by drivers to buy new vehicles, with nine in every 10 cars bought by motorists relying on a loan, according to Autotrader.
There are fears a loan famine would effectively freeze up the market – damaging the already under-fire sector.
The Lloyds position seems eminently sensible. Continue to lend but don't pay commission.
The dealerships can adjust their sales pricing strategy with an explicit fee paid up front by the buyer. Or spread over time separate to the lease if they so wish.
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
I must admit, I'm pretty disappointed that Andrew Tate can't spell. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking of him as having a giant intellect.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
Why does anyone give a shit what the sex abuser had to say ?
Say nonsense in an aggressive and self-promoting way and hordes of people will buy into it, in a literal sense. Incredibly, people listen ot this guy, for a small while longer at least.
We like to think we can all filter out egomaniacal con artists, but the sad fact is usually when someone acts like they are dog's bollocks a lot of people believe it.
It's why people fall for grifts from people renting labourginis and private jets think they must be successful and so won't con you.
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
The idea is you change cars every 3 years and your payments stay roughly the same
You always have a nearly new car and you know your budget
Scoop: Blockchain researchers have found evidence of rampant wash trading on the leading electoral betting site Polymarket, with Chaos Labs concluding that one-third of volume on its presidential market is likely artificial
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
The point is that what you said above is not a 'peace'; it is a defeat for Ukraine. You want Ukraine defeated - which is why your avatar is so egregious.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
It's immoral to expect other people to die to satisfy your need for moral purity.
So you cannot answer the question.
My position is f-all to do with 'moral purity'; just as yours is nothing to do with helping Ukraine.
My position is this: a Russian victory in Ukraine is bad for the world, for a whole host of reasons that have been discussed before. That means for as long as Ukraine wants to fight, we need to support them in that fight, to the best of our abilities.
There we have it. You don't care about the lives of Ukrainians, only 'the world', which is just an abstraction.
What the actual fuck? How does your support for Trump help the lives of Ukrainians; many of whom will suddenly find themselves Russian. Have you seen what Russia's done to the population of the territories they have invaded? It ain't good.
But again, you fail to answer the question. So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
The fact that you can't see how peace benefits Ukraine says it all. You are completely detached from the reality of the war. If you were somebody who would otherwise have been killed by a missile but instead got to live thanks to a peace deal, I think you'd see the benefit.
But on that basis why not force agreement on a peace deal in the first week of the war? Lots of people have been killed since then on both sides after all.
Given that Biden has consistently slow-walked military aid, that's a good question. Did he ever have any serious intention of helping Ukraine defend the borders it had at the beginning of his presidency?
Biden has not slow walked military aid, the GOP in Congress at the urging of Trump has.
You have zero integrity.
This is simply not true. Both in terms of the supply of weapons and in placing constraints on how weapons are used, the Biden adminstration has limited Ukraine's ability to fight.
Bullshit.
Do you really believe that? Why did Biden veto British weapons being used to hit Russian targets? Are you happy about that?
Yes I really believe that.
Biden is constrained by what Congress will approve and it is the GOP who have been the ones he's struggled to carry.
Trump wants even less support to go to Ukraine and he's explicit on that.
Britain is not constrained by Congress. When Starmer went to him to ask for permission for British weapons to be used against Russian targets, Biden said no. How do you square that with your belief that he is being held back by the GOP?
Because Britain is weak, and how much it will do without american permission is limited, though Boris did seem to do a good job being a booster for Ukraine, I wish he had spent more time doing so after his ousting.
That wasn't the question. If Biden is champing at the bit to do more for Ukraine but is constrained by Congress and the GOP, why wouldn't he jump at the chance to bypass them?
I don't think Biden wants to go as far as Britain and others do on this subject, probably due to his own intelligence and military assessments. Two things can, however be true. He is constrained somewhat, without that explaining all his foot dragging. And that is still a lot more than the opposition is suggesting it will do.
I think we see the other side of the US politics A when the Election has happened and A the result is in.
A will free him up from Electoral consequence of Trump, Trumping. B if the GOP win may lead him to do things rapidly before handover whilst he can, and if the Dems wins may lead him to do things Harris intends.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
Scoop: Blockchain researchers have found evidence of rampant wash trading on the leading electoral betting site Polymarket, with Chaos Labs concluding that one-third of volume on its presidential market is likely artificial
Gotta love the Daily Mail hyperbolic language. It's like Dickens describing having to enter the workhouse...
"From 2027, the value of pensions pots will be included in estates and caught in the net of inheritance taxes. This means thousands of grieving families will be dragged into paying the dreaded death duty for the first time at a rate of 40 per cent."
Mail Online
My italics
I prefer my online propaganda to at least make an effort to look measured and neutral. Makes me feel smarter when I regurgitate it like a performing seal, as opposed to the overly emotive partisan screeds.
Scoop: Blockchain researchers have found evidence of rampant wash trading on the leading electoral betting site Polymarket, with Chaos Labs concluding that one-third of volume on its presidential market is likely artificial
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
Yes, but hopefully they will find their way to announcing a further cut to draught duty with each future budget.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Never gonna happen
I suspect not either, but it sets them up to run the favourite “don’t let the Tories near the health service” line in 2029.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
Yes, but hopefully they will find their way to announcing a further cut to draught duty with each future budget.
I don't see any enthusiasm for pubs and bars from Labour so I doubt it will be high on their agenda. And given that further tax rises are likely, cuts for boozers are not
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Never gonna happen
I suspect not either, but it sets them up to run the favourite “don’t let the Tories near the health service” line in 2029.
Indeed. The 2029 campaign literature is already with the printers
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
Surely the dog that really didn't bark in Budget was Council Tax changes?
More bands? Or sorting out the valuations from 1990s?
Zippo.
Nobody in central government cares that much about local government, even when they have some experience of it, and it is not really worth devoting much time to. They're already pushing ahead with more regional authorities, going after council tax as well was probably a step too far.
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
The idea is you change cars every 3 years and your payments stay roughly the same
You always have a nearly new car and you know your budget
That's the American model
Sure, but your payments stay incredibly high forever, relative to what you could get for a similarly good vehicle that's slightly older. Or if you kept one for longer.
I understand why car manufacturers love it because it gets someone to (effectively) buy a new car every three years.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
Most 'local pub champions' use it once a year for an hour Christmas Day lunchtime and expect to be greeted like conquering heroes on entering.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
As CGT is up with immediate effect, the amount I would now save by leaving the UK for 5 years stands at £59638 per annum over 5 years. Which is equivalent to a salary of 85k a year. Previous two jobs were 70k and 90k respectively, so split the difference and I can approximately afford to leave the UK, do nothing for five years, and end up in the same place as if I stayed here and worked.
The main reason for staying is that I'm still young-ish in my 40s and quite like work.
The main reason for leaving is the country is on its uppers and things are hardly likely to get better from here. Better to cash out now and enjoy one's retirement from warmer climes.
I'm less concerned about paying an extra 4% a year, more worried that the country is going to continue to get worse and my quality of life here will continue to decline.
As I said in the previous thread, if I do remain in the UK i will significantly alter my behaviour, making fewer capital disposals so as to incur less tax. If I leave I retire.
Decisions, decisions.
My feeling is that the UK is in terminal decline and this budget is another notch on the death spiral. The Tories screwed the pooch, but squeezing the life out of the private sector to give to the inefficient public sector is a one way ticket back to the 70s. So why not buy a one way ticket out...
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
The idea is you change cars every 3 years and your payments stay roughly the same
You always have a nearly new car and you know your budget
That's the American model
Sure, but your payments stay incredibly high forever
They are lower than they would be if you were buying the car
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
Oh Monsieur ambassador with these teases of a joyous future you are spoiling us!
Anecdotal Musk effect. Was thinking of buying a new car last year and was quite intrigued by Tesla. Actually buying a car this year and didn't even give Tesla a minutes thought. Can't be alone.
There are multiple reasons why I wouldn't purchase a Tesla
Elon is one, the fact you can't open a door manually in an emergency is another..
A brief look online suggests there is an emergency release mechanism.
Good luck trying to remember how to find and trigger it in an actual emergency..
We always have a tool for smashing windows in the drivers door pocket. Only used it once - not our car but someone’s keys were locked in and they didn’t want to wait for the aa…
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
I would personally like to see some rebalancing. I think it should be more expensive to drink at home, and less expensive to visit a pub/restaurant. I understand the very ingrained policy and societal reasons why that won’t happen, but in my dream world I’d see that change.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
Most 'local pub champions' use it once a year for an hour Christmas Day lunchtime and expect to be greeted like conquering heroes on entering.
Frankly I would be happy to never enter a bar again...they are generally full of boring people with body odour that want to talk about nothing but football or cricket, assuming you can even talk over the volume of the music. Then at some point in the evening someone will turn into an arsehole and cause a scene....yeah no thanks
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
There has been quite a step change in delivery since July. With the strikes settled the brakes are off, and the number of long waiters drops every week on our Trust's delivery dashboard. Management is increasingly focussed on productivity rather than firefighting.
We have a long way to go to get back to 2010 performance, and a lot hinges on how bad the winter flu season is (it was bad in Australia, and gets here 6 months later), but there is definite progress even in 4 months.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
I would personally like to see some rebalancing. I think it should be more expensive to drink at home, and less expensive to visit a pub/restaurant. I understand the very ingrained policy and societal reasons why that won’t happen, but in my dream world I’d see that change.
Why do you think it should be more expensive to drink at home? You do know a lot of people do not value the pub experience and would rather avoid it....why should we be penalised because for some abstract reason you think it is a better experience?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
If you are as fit as your ultra-walking adventures imply, could there be an acting opportunity starring in The Full Postie?
I really can bend over
I just checked; I can still, without warming up, bend over from standing, with my legs straight, and put my hands flat on the floor and my head between my knees
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
Most 'local pub champions' use it once a year for an hour Christmas Day lunchtime and expect to be greeted like conquering heroes on entering.
Frankly I would be happy to never enter a bar again...they are generally full of boring people with body odour that want to talk about nothing but football or cricket, assuming you can even talk over the volume of the music. Then at some point in the evening someone will turn into an arsehole and cause a scene....yeah no thanks
As places of delight they are not what they once were for sure.
Oliver Johnson @BristOliver · 1h If Rachel Reeves can break the rules on pre-announcing budget measures, I can break my self-imposed weekday Twitter exile for a graph which shows how much she's hiked the relative cost of employing people on low incomes.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
Most 'local pub champions' use it once a year for an hour Christmas Day lunchtime and expect to be greeted like conquering heroes on entering.
Frankly I would be happy to never enter a bar again...they are generally full of boring people with body odour that want to talk about nothing but football or cricket, assuming you can even talk over the volume of the music. Then at some point in the evening someone will turn into an arsehole and cause a scene....yeah no thanks
As places of delight they are not what they once were for sure.
They were never great, they were merely all we had. Now we have better choices so they are thankfully dying just as the high street chain store is
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
No, but I would be happy for on-sales to be free of alcohol duty, funded by higher duty on off-sales, but for the total tax take to be the same.
incidentally, I noticed that Doom Bar is now brewed in the east midlands.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
I must admit, I'm pretty disappointed that Andrew Tate can't spell. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking of him as having a giant intellect.
What’s striking, sort of persuasive to me in the big yougov polling effort for CES is how it deviates between appalling for Kam in the sun belt, but reasonably comfortably handing her the election via the rust belt.
The fact some samples are nearly a month old doesn’t worry me, as I think this final week has been owned by Harris.
Savanta snap poll 41 27 good vs bad for the budget Big support for Minimum wage, NHS funding Neutral on NI Firmly against bus fare cap increase
Initial verdict a relief for no 10 but no narrative changer yet
This is what they will have been banking on.
The NHS is a more tangible public priority than growth, but they can't l leave it too long.
Getting waiting lists down to what they were in 2010 was a key promise and cannot be done overnight. If they fail to do that by the next election then they will lose tons of seats. Its a deal-breaker for their voters.
Pagan2 and others will tell you that the NHS is a sponge and the extra money being spent on it will not alter the numbers treated or reduce waiting lists. But the experience from 1997 to 2010 says otherwise:
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
You want to tax me hard, don't you?
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
No he obviously has a preference for his local pub to stay open so we must all be forced to drink his way I suspect
Most 'local pub champions' use it once a year for an hour Christmas Day lunchtime and expect to be greeted like conquering heroes on entering.
Frankly I would be happy to never enter a bar again...they are generally full of boring people with body odour that want to talk about nothing but football or cricket, assuming you can even talk over the volume of the music. Then at some point in the evening someone will turn into an arsehole and cause a scene....yeah no thanks
As places of delight they are not what they once were for sure.
They were never great, they were merely all we had. Now we have better choices so they are thankfully dying just as the high street chain store is
Not sure I am thankful for that ! bars , shops etc are a sign of life in a place
Reeves might also be banking on a big Keynesian boost to the economy through NHS investment, and not only a feelgood factor.
The idea might be to reintroduce the green growth policy later on, if the previous has acted as a stimulus to the wider economy too. Most of the current forecast seem to assume that it won't, after two years, though.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
I would personally like to see some rebalancing. I think it should be more expensive to drink at home, and less expensive to visit a pub/restaurant. I understand the very ingrained policy and societal reasons why that won’t happen, but in my dream world I’d see that change.
Why do you think it should be more expensive to drink at home? You do know a lot of people do not value the pub experience and would rather avoid it....why should we be penalised because for some abstract reason you think it is a better experience?
If anyone were as daft as to take up numbertwelve’s suggestion, the home brewing market would take off pretty quickly.
Oliver Johnson @BristOliver · 1h If Rachel Reeves can break the rules on pre-announcing budget measures, I can break my self-imposed weekday Twitter exile for a graph which shows how much she's hiked the relative cost of employing people on low incomes.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
There has been quite a step change in delivery since July. With the strikes settled the brakes are off, and the number of long waiters drops every week on our Trust's delivery dashboard. Management is increasingly focussed on productivity rather than firefighting.
We have a long way to go to get back to 2010 performance, and a lot hinges on how bad the winter flu season is (it was bad in Australia, and gets here 6 months later), but there is definite progress even in 4 months.
Anecdata, but a relative is waiting for an OT appt and was told yesterday that it is now not as long to wait as was feared - now "weeks rather than months". When first applying for the appointment it was a a case of 'god alone knows when we can get around to you'.
On other hand another relative waited 10 hours for an ambulance two weeks ago.
Zelensky has given the White House both barrels today. Which is rather interesting.
Well, if his claim is true, then it is deserved.
(It seems that the story that Ukraine wanted long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles was a secret part of Big Z's peace plan, told to the USA in confidence, and it soon leaked to the media. Note: Ukraine did not tell the USA about the Kursk offensive, and it worked. Someone in the US is leaking badly.)
Biden has been a disaster for Ukraine from the beginning.
No, he has not been a 'disaster'. He could have done better; but much of what he can do is stifled by.... the GOP.
Your mate Trump will be a disaster for Ukraine. You shill for Trump whilst having a reference to the Ukraine flag as your avatar. You should replace it with the Russian flag, as they're who you want to win in Ukraine.
Milley told lawmakers during closed-door briefings on Feb. 2 and 3 that a full-scale Russian invasion of Ukraine could result in the fall of Kyiv within 72-hours, and could come at a cost of 15,000 Ukrainian troop deaths and 4,000 Russian troop deaths.
Several lawmakers expressed concern that the Biden administration did not respond quickly to provide Ukraine with significant military aid, such as anti-aircraft and rocket launcher systems that would defend against an invasion from Russia.
Biden administration officials at the meetings responded to these concerns by saying that a significant supply of military aid to Ukraine could be used as a reason to invade Ukraine.
And what did Trump do to stop Russia between 2016 and 2020, when they were occupying Crimea and vast areas of the Donbass? Answer: weaken Ukraine by obsessing over a fucking laptop.
Replace your avatar with the Russian flag, you sick shill.
If I may, I think the position is more nuanced than you’d care to admit. Ukraine and Russia are locked in a war of attrition, their side looks like it might have more staying power than ours. And its partners are now providing not just shells but infantry.
Even with a 5-1 attrition ratio, it is not guaranteed that Russia collapses prior to Ukraine. Especially given the Washington consensus (and Berlin) seems to be to place extreme restrictions on Ukraine’s use of arms, for fear of escalation.
We must be realistic about what is politically and operational possible at this point. The democrats could win all three elections and it’s not clear that things next year would be very different to today. What is their plan to end the war? It’s clear they’ve thrown Zelenskys plan back in his face.
That's all very debateable, and is what some people have been saying from the start, from "Kyiv should just give in to Russia", back in February 2022 to "Congress will never allow Ukraine to get more weapons!" earlier in the year. Just to be proved wrong every time.
And if Russia is warning us against 'escalation', then they shouldn't fucking well constantly escalate themselves, whether it's long range weapons from Iran or troops and weapons from North Korea.
But this is irrelevant to Trump, whose only plan for 'peace' is an abject Ukrainian surrender.
If it had been left to Biden, Putin would have taken Kyiv within days. His approach was entirely reactive, and showed much less resolve than Boris Johnson.
We're talking about Trump. What do *you* think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
Hypothetically, if there is an armistice that freezes the current front line, that's not "abject surrender" and it would help Ukraine very much to have time to regroup without dealing with the burden of fighting a war and facing constant missile attacks.
Yes; that's an abject surrender as Russia will just regroup and try again. What's more Ukraine gets f'all out of it, and Russia gets loads. And dangling NATO membership in front of Ukraine does not deter Putin, as he knows your best bud Trump isn't NATO's biggest fan. Ukraine cannot rely on NATO with Trump in charge of the USA.
So I ask again: what do you think Trump will do to help Ukraine?
You're being irrational and driven by emotion. If you think that peace is nothing then you need a reality check.
It will be a peace which will be about as meaningful as the infamous 'piece of paper'
I await Corbyn’s future condemnation of Ukraine, after second sunrise on the Black Sea.
Well, someone didn't like Schwarzenegger endorsing Harris.
Andrew Tate replying to @Scwarzenegger The worst thing about going from nothing to super rich and famous as I have is realising all your heros are sellouts.
You meet these people you once loved, and trust me, youre dissapointed.
So sad.
Being serious, given his past comments about January 6th it's not like it would have surprised anyone which way Arnold was learning.
I must admit, I'm pretty disappointed that Andrew Tate can't spell. I'm sure I wasn't alone in thinking of him as having a giant intellect.
What’s striking, sort of persuasive to me in the big yougov polling effort for CES is how it deviates between appalling for Kam in the sun belt, but reasonably comfortably handing her the election via the rust belt.
The fact some samples are nearly a month old doesn’t worry me, as I think this final week has been owned by Harris.
Big Joe undid any positives with his basket of deplorables redux yesterday. Trumpslide for me, 350 EC plus
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
I would personally like to see some rebalancing. I think it should be more expensive to drink at home, and less expensive to visit a pub/restaurant. I understand the very ingrained policy and societal reasons why that won’t happen, but in my dream world I’d see that change.
Why do you think it should be more expensive to drink at home? You do know a lot of people do not value the pub experience and would rather avoid it....why should we be penalised because for some abstract reason you think it is a better experience?
The advantage from a public policy perspective is that drinking in a licensed premises is under the supervision of the licensee. There should be a benefit in terms of monitoring potentially problematic drinkers.
Also, in a world of working from home, I think there's also a benefit in encouraging people to get out of the house and mix socially.
Finally, as an emblem of British culture, the pub is not a bad choice.
Obviously when I advocated for this in the past there was an element of self-interest, as I went frequently to a pub for knit nights.
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
There has been quite a step change in delivery since July. With the strikes settled the brakes are off, and the number of long waiters drops every week on our Trust's delivery dashboard. Management is increasingly focussed on productivity rather than firefighting.
We have a long way to go to get back to 2010 performance, and a lot hinges on how bad the winter flu season is (it was bad in Australia, and gets here 6 months later), but there is definite progress even in 4 months.
Anecdata, but a relative is waiting for an OT appt and was told yesterday that it is now not as long to wait as was feared - now "weeks rather than months". When first applying for the appointment it was a a case of 'god alone knows when we can get around to you'.
On other hand another relative waited 10 hours for an ambulance two weeks ago.
Emergency services are a bit of a nightmare at present. Emergency department attendances in my Trust are 8% up on this time last year, and as its a block contract we get no extra funding for it, just have to keep going.
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
The idea is you change cars every 3 years and your payments stay roughly the same
You always have a nearly new car and you know your budget
That's the American model
Sure, but your payments stay incredibly high forever
They are lower than they would be if you were buying the car
That's just not true.
Let's say a car depreciates over 12 years. Each car costs £40k to make the maths simple.
- c.50% of depreciation paid over first 3 years - Interest costs on the part you don't own of 10% pa
If you lease a car you pay £20k over 3 years plus 10% on an average of £30k value outstanding, so £6k total. That's £12k per year or £1k per month.
But over 13 years that's a total of £128k
If you buy a car on finance, over 12 years you pay an average of £2k per year in interest (£20k x 10%) and pay off £40k for the car. That equates to £54k total. Under half the lease deal.
Adjust the assumptions as you see fit but the principle definitely still stands.
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
No, but I would be happy for on-sales to be free of alcohol duty, funded by higher duty on off-sales, but for the total tax take to be the same.
incidentally, I noticed that Doom Bar is now brewed in the east midlands.
Sadly I think Doom Bar is one of those brands that has now been absorbed by the hig multinationals - Coors in this case.
Savanta snap poll 41 27 good vs bad for the budget Big support for Minimum wage, NHS funding Neutral on NI Firmly against bus fare cap increase
Initial verdict a relief for no 10 but no narrative changer yet
This is what they will have been banking on.
The NHS is a more tangible public priority than growth, but they can't l leave it too long.
Getting waiting lists down to what they were in 2010 was a key promise and cannot be done overnight. If they fail to do that by the next election then they will lose tons of seats. Its a deal-breaker for their voters.
Pagan2 and others will tell you that the NHS is a sponge and the extra money being spent on it will not alter the numbers treated or reduce waiting lists. But the experience from 1997 to 2010 says otherwise:
Your graph proves my point despite you thinking otherwise.
The nhs has more employees now than in 2010, is better funded in real terms than 2010.....treats less people than in 2010....so all the extra money did nothing.
By the way don't also neglect those waiting list numbers under new labour had rather a lot of fiddles done by trusts to meet the targets as was well documented at the time where clocks could be restarted by shenannigans
2010 employees in nhs 1.4 million now 1.7 million 2010 money spent on nhs 131 billion....current budget £196b billion
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Prediction the extra money for the nhs won't actually change numbers treated
I'll second that. Sponges hold a suprising amount of water
If that happens then this is a one term government.
There has been quite a step change in delivery since July. With the strikes settled the brakes are off, and the number of long waiters drops every week on our Trust's delivery dashboard. Management is increasingly focussed on productivity rather than firefighting.
We have a long way to go to get back to 2010 performance, and a lot hinges on how bad the winter flu season is (it was bad in Australia, and gets here 6 months later), but there is definite progress even in 4 months.
Producer who has interest says it's great the government is listening to producer interests, shock.
As CGT is up with immediate effect, the amount I would now save by leaving the UK for 5 years stands at £59638 per annum over 5 years. Which is equivalent to a salary of 85k a year. Previous two jobs were 70k and 90k respectively, so split the difference and I can approximately afford to leave the UK, do nothing for five years, and end up in the same place as if I stayed here and worked.
The main reason for staying is that I'm still young-ish in my 40s and quite like work.
The main reason for leaving is the country is on its uppers and things are hardly likely to get better from here. Better to cash out now and enjoy one's retirement from warmer climes.
I'm less concerned about paying an extra 4% a year, more worried that the country is going to continue to get worse and my quality of life here will continue to decline.
As I said in the previous thread, if I do remain in the UK i will significantly alter my behaviour, making fewer capital disposals so as to incur less tax. If I leave I retire.
Decisions, decisions.
My feeling is that the UK is in terminal decline and this budget is another notch on the death spiral. The Tories screwed the pooch, but squeezing the life out of the private sector to give to the inefficient public sector is a one way ticket back to the 70s. So why not buy a one way ticket out...
I've suggested a few times on here that we should have a UK FATCA. Would you renounce your British citizenship to avoid paying UK taxes? Genuinely interested.
Savanta snap poll 41 27 good vs bad for the budget Big support for Minimum wage, NHS funding Neutral on NI Firmly against bus fare cap increase
Initial verdict a relief for no 10 but no narrative changer yet
This is what they will have been banking on.
The NHS is a more tangible public priority than growth, but they can't l leave it too long.
Getting waiting lists down to what they were in 2010 was a key promise and cannot be done overnight. If they fail to do that by the next election then they will lose tons of seats. Its a deal-breaker for their voters.
Pagan2 and others will tell you that the NHS is a sponge and the extra money being spent on it will not alter the numbers treated or reduce waiting lists. But the experience from 1997 to 2010 says otherwise:
One penny off a pint of beer was really taking the piss
I'm glad it didn't go up, even though I don't often drink in pubs, but one penny off?
What's the fucking point?
while it is a token decrease, the interesting bit is that duty went up for non-draught beer, so there will be an increasing tax diferrential in favour of draught, and hence pubs over supermarkets.
Oh I missed that. How fabulous. That's exactly the policy direction I've been calling for over many years.
it needs to go a lot further. I would prefer higher tax on offsales, with corresponding cuts to on-sales, so people find pubs and bars better places to drink. More sociable too.
I think it did go further. The differential is about 4.5%, which is a chunk.
Draught Duty down by 1.7%. Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
I maybe am reading this wrong but from what foxy said he wants tax to be high enough on supermarket beer to make drinking in a bar preferable. That for instance would put a four pack of doom bar from a supermarket to 17£ or so against the the current 5£
I would personally like to see some rebalancing. I think it should be more expensive to drink at home, and less expensive to visit a pub/restaurant. I understand the very ingrained policy and societal reasons why that won’t happen, but in my dream world I’d see that change.
Why do you think it should be more expensive to drink at home? You do know a lot of people do not value the pub experience and would rather avoid it....why should we be penalised because for some abstract reason you think it is a better experience?
Admittedly I am being a bit flippant. But I am not entirely convinced that the level of cheap and easily consumable alcohol at home is necessarily a good thing. Whereas drinking out requires an actual effort to leave the house, and benefits the hospitality sector. But I think we can all rest assured it will never come to pass, so I think you’re safe!
The underlying figures are dreadful, second worst income growth on record (to the pandemic era), flaccid growth, inflation running above target, borrowing up. I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
The gamble is they get enough feel good from the extra investment in rNHS, I think.
Never gonna happen
I suspect not either, but it sets them up to run the favourite “don’t let the Tories near the health service” line in 2029.
Indeed. The 2029 campaign literature is already with the printers
There's never been an election Labour haven't tried that literature.
Comments
I’m getting a different vibe from the last week of this campaign, than from previous few weeks. It certainly feels like the actual argument clearly won, if not the election. Will it amount to anything, or too late - the whole last two months of campaigning needed to be as good as the last week had been for Harris, to have made a difference?
I’m still calling it big win for Trump on EC.
My monthly picture allowance
"Stanford Medicine-led study shows why women are at greater risk of autoimmune disease
Research throws light on the mystery of why women are much more prone to autoimmune disorders: A molecule made by one X chromosome in every female cell can generate antibodies to a woman’s own tissues."
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/02/women-autoimmune.html
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3yn7pzrndo
The word "clade" being used here, for a non-technical audience, was a new one on me. Pandemics are fun, you learn so much new stuff.
Scoop: Blockchain researchers have found evidence of rampant wash trading on the leading electoral betting site Polymarket, with Chaos Labs concluding that one-third of volume on its presidential market is likely artificial
https://x.com/leomschwartz/status/1851634456882188314
His hope has been that eventually Russia will conclude that they should stop sending more soldiers into the meatgrinder, and that Ukraine can be persuaded to accept a ceasefire at that point. But Russia has proven to be much more determined, and able to sustain a long war, than most people had anticipated. So his strategy has failed.
It's still better than Trump's strategy, which is to force Ukraine into defeat. Trump is even more scared, or unwilling to countenance the very possibility, of Russian defeat, but he doesn't give a cobblers about Ukraine's survival. So Biden's policy is superior to Trump's in that respect.
The alternative, arguably Johnsonian, policy, is to push wholeheartedly for Ukraine's victory.
I genuinely don't see where Labour get any feel good from to save them in 2028/9
1, because it will stop motor vehicle drivers on their mobile phones from turning you into a KSI.
2, because pedestrians commit more crimes than cyclists (eg robberies), and it will mean we can catch you. Doesn't seem to work for cars, however.
3, just in case you dent a bumper or bonnet when you deliberately put yourself in a dangerous situation, and try to pretend you are the injured party.
If he is is consistent he also needs to be demanding helmets for drivers of motor vehicles, and no glass in vehicle windows so they can hear other people coming - to match up to his demands on headphones for people on cycles or Shank's Pony.
But he's a lawyer.
"From 2027, the value of pensions pots will be included in estates and caught in the net of inheritance taxes. This means thousands of grieving families will be dragged into paying the dreaded death duty for the first time at a rate of 40 per cent."
Mail Online
My italics
"Hi where can I get 2 young female guinea pigs from locally please"
I've replied;
"It's sounds like you want to experiment on girls!"
Which is obviously bullshit.
The dealerships can adjust their sales pricing strategy with an explicit fee paid up front by the buyer. Or spread over time separate to the lease if they so wish.
Frankly I'm amazed so many people buy new cars on lease. You pay for the most expensive part of the depreciation of a car, plus a very significant interest rate.
We like to think we can all filter out egomaniacal con artists, but the sad fact is usually when someone acts like they are dog's bollocks a lot of people believe it.
It's why people fall for grifts from people renting labourginis and private jets think they must be successful and so won't con you.
You always have a nearly new car and you know your budget
That's the American model
Should I just bend over while you get a huge payrise?
A will free him up from Electoral consequence of Trump, Trumping.
B if the GOP win may lead him to do things rapidly before handover whilst he can, and if the Dems wins may lead him to do things Harris intends.
"Do you think Trump respects women?"
No: 49%
Yes: 38%
Unsure: 13%
YouGov / Oct 29, 2024 / n=1587
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851710090102886516
More bands? Or sorting out the valuations from 1990s?
Zippo.
And given that further tax rises are likely, cuts for boozers are not
“Gee I’m just not sure….”
Draught Duty down by 1.7%.
Non draught (eg supermarket, bottled) Duty up by 2.7%, which is the RPI.
Or, like william, taking the piss.
Those who say (X) describes Kamala Harris:
Liberal: 60%
Progressive: 34%
Socialist: 29%
Moderate: 28%
Extremist: 23%
Marxist: 19%
Fascist: 10%
Authoritarian: 10%
Conservative: 6%
Libertarian: 5%
YouGov / Oct 29, 2024 / n=1312
https://x.com/USA_Polling/status/1851711746547028185
I understand why car manufacturers love it because it gets someone to (effectively) buy a new car every three years.
But it's an expensive way to own a car.
The main reason for staying is that I'm still young-ish in my 40s and quite like work.
The main reason for leaving is the country is on its uppers and things are hardly likely to get better from here. Better to cash out now and enjoy one's retirement from warmer climes.
I'm less concerned about paying an extra 4% a year, more worried that the country is going to continue to get worse and my quality of life here will continue to decline.
As I said in the previous thread, if I do remain in the UK i will significantly alter my behaviour, making fewer capital disposals so as to incur less tax. If I leave I retire.
Decisions, decisions.
My feeling is that the UK is in terminal decline and this budget is another notch on the death spiral. The Tories screwed the pooch, but squeezing the life out of the private sector to give to the inefficient public sector is a one way ticket back to the 70s. So why not buy a one way ticket out...
We have a long way to go to get back to 2010 performance, and a lot hinges on how bad the winter flu season is (it was bad in Australia, and gets here 6 months later), but there is definite progress even in 4 months.
I just checked; I can still, without warming up, bend over from standing, with my legs straight, and put my hands flat on the floor and my head between my knees
Do you think I'll get the part?
@BristOliver
·
1h
If Rachel Reeves can break the rules on pre-announcing budget measures, I can break my self-imposed weekday Twitter exile for a graph which shows how much she's hiked the relative cost of employing people on low incomes.
https://x.com/BristOliver/status/1851690941460922814
incidentally, I noticed that Doom Bar is now brewed in the east midlands.
The fact some samples are nearly a month old doesn’t worry me, as I think this final week has been owned by Harris.
The idea might be to reintroduce the green growth policy later on, if the previous has acted as a stimulus to the wider economy too. Most of the current forecast seem to assume that it won't, after two years, though.
@BristOliver can f*ck right off.
On other hand another relative waited 10 hours for an ambulance two weeks ago.
Reggaeton superstar Nicky Jam has withdrawn his endorsement of Trump, saying, "You respect Puerto Rico."
Nicky Jam appeared onstage with Trump 1 month ago in a MAGA hat.
https://x.com/EWagmeister/status/1851692206903742598
I have nothing to add to what Aubrey Plaza said here. 👀
https://x.com/RyanShead/status/1851506534821564663
Also, in a world of working from home, I think there's also a benefit in encouraging people to get out of the house and mix socially.
Finally, as an emblem of British culture, the pub is not a bad choice.
Obviously when I advocated for this in the past there was an element of self-interest, as I went frequently to a pub for knit nights.
Let's say a car depreciates over 12 years. Each car costs £40k to make the maths simple.
- c.50% of depreciation paid over first 3 years
- Interest costs on the part you don't own of 10% pa
If you lease a car you pay £20k over 3 years plus 10% on an average of £30k value outstanding, so £6k total. That's £12k per year or £1k per month.
But over 13 years that's a total of £128k
If you buy a car on finance, over 12 years you pay an average of £2k per year in interest (£20k x 10%) and pay off £40k for the car. That equates to £54k total. Under half the lease deal.
Adjust the assumptions as you see fit but the principle definitely still stands.
The nhs has more employees now than in 2010, is better funded in real terms than 2010.....treats less people than in 2010....so all the extra money did nothing.
By the way don't also neglect those waiting list numbers under new labour had rather a lot of fiddles done by trusts to meet the targets as was well documented at the time where clocks could be restarted by shenannigans
2010 employees in nhs 1.4 million now 1.7 million
2010 money spent on nhs 131 billion....current budget £196b billion
The answer is, quite simply, no.
You cannot tax your way to prosperity. Hard times ahead.