The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO is so it can invade again in a few years with impunity. There is no other motivation.
I'm not seeing what's in this 'deal' for Ukraine.
And I'm not seeing what's in it for Europe, either: ..The WSJ reports that one idea proposed within Trump’s transition office would involve Ukraine promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the US would reportedly continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid to deter future Russian aggression.
Under this proposal, the current front lines in the war would essentially be locked in place, with both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to “an 800-mile demilitarized zone” along the frontline. The Wall Street Journal notes that the details of who would police this demilitarized zone remain unclear, but one adviser said it would not involve American troops or funding from a US-backed international body like the United Nations.
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team told the WSJ. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.“..
I am trying to imagine the look on the Schultz's face, when told to come up with German troops to defend the Ukraine border.
I am trying to imagine the look on the Putin's face, when told that German troops will be present in Ukraine.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only.
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Interesting question. Can someone be elected VP after having been President twice and therefore get a partial 3rd term after the President dies/steps down?
I think the VP isn't put into the line of succession in this scenario. It just skips over the VP directly to the majority leader.
The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO is so it can invade again in a few years with impunity. There is no other motivation.
I'm not seeing what's in this 'deal' for Ukraine.
And I'm not seeing what's in it for Europe, either: ..The WSJ reports that one idea proposed within Trump’s transition office would involve Ukraine promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the US would reportedly continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid to deter future Russian aggression.
Under this proposal, the current front lines in the war would essentially be locked in place, with both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to “an 800-mile demilitarized zone” along the frontline. The Wall Street Journal notes that the details of who would police this demilitarized zone remain unclear, but one adviser said it would not involve American troops or funding from a US-backed international body like the United Nations.
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team told the WSJ. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.“..
Looks like a non starter to me. Also does Ukraine still hold Russian territory? Not sure how Putin would feel about bits of Russia being permanently part of Ukraine.
Needless to say Trump is a fecking idiot if he thinks this would be acceptable to Ukraine or to the rest of NATO.
Trump doesn't care - he's viewpoint will be I take it or leave it but we won't be spending another penny on arms for Ukraine..
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
It is a basic part of the NATO charter. If countries are not willing to respond when asked then NATO becomes utterly meaningless. In effect they stop being part of NATO.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only.
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Interesting question. Can someone be elected VP after having been President twice and therefore get a partial 3rd term after the President dies/steps down?
I think the VP isn't put into the line of succession in this scenario. It just skips over the VP directly to the majority leader.
As I understand it, you can't come VP if you are ineligible to be President.
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
I may be wrong but he was one of the last National Liberal MPs - he represented St Ives in Cornwall for a number of years.
Just as an aside, is there any other constituency where the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates have been the same at the last FIVE General Elections - Andrew George beat Derek Thomas in 2010 and 2024 while Thomas took the seat in 2015 and held it in both 2017 and 2019?
On an adjacent note, is there a constituency where the same person has stood for THREE different parties?
The Leeanderthal Man has stood for both the Tories and Reform. Has anyone stood for more parties?
George Galloway has stood for Labour, Respect, as an independent, Workers Party and All for Unity in different elections, but not in the same constituency.
Dave Nellist stood for Coventry South East as Labour and then as independent labour. There were then boundary changes, so he stood for Coventry South for the Socialist Party. He then switched to a different Coventry constituency, Coventry North East, and stood there for the Socialist Party and then for the TUSC. In between, he also stood in local elections in Coventry for Militant Labour and in European elections for No2EU.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Were this Putin / Trump was 20 years younger I could see him running as Vice President with the President as a figurehead.
But Trump will be heading for retirement / retired on medical reasons / dead in 4 years and that is likely to mean it's Vance / the appointed vice president seeking their first full term.
More to the point, he's constitutionally barred from standing as VP.
In which case the Putin playbook would be to become secretary of state - but as I said he's too old for this to matter.
I suspect the question of who becomes VP once Vance becomes President comes down to how Trump leaves power. If managed I could easily see Ivanka becoming Vice President...
Ivanka's personal politics seem very different from Vance's.
I may be wrong but he was one of the last National Liberal MPs - he represented St Ives in Cornwall for a number of years.
Just as an aside, is there any other constituency where the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates have been the same at the last FIVE General Elections - Andrew George beat Derek Thomas in 2010 and 2024 while Thomas took the seat in 2015 and held it in both 2017 and 2019?
On an adjacent note, is there a constituency where the same person has stood for THREE different parties?
The Leeanderthal Man has stood for both the Tories and Reform. Has anyone stood for more parties?
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
It is a basic part of the NATO charter. If countries are not willing to respond when asked then NATO becomes utterly meaningless. In effect they stop being part of NATO.
Actually, the NATO response is entirely up to the member states. This was key point in the original design of the alliance - to *prevent* the automatic go-to-war built into previous alliances.
I recall @MoonRabbit was a bit startled when I explained this in the run up to the current Ukraine conflict - if a NATO member is attacked, no NATO member is *obligated* to do anything.
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO is so it can invade again in a few years with impunity. There is no other motivation.
I'm not seeing what's in this 'deal' for Ukraine.
And I'm not seeing what's in it for Europe, either: ..The WSJ reports that one idea proposed within Trump’s transition office would involve Ukraine promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the US would reportedly continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid to deter future Russian aggression.
Under this proposal, the current front lines in the war would essentially be locked in place, with both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to “an 800-mile demilitarized zone” along the frontline. The Wall Street Journal notes that the details of who would police this demilitarized zone remain unclear, but one adviser said it would not involve American troops or funding from a US-backed international body like the United Nations.
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team told the WSJ. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.“..
Looks like a non starter to me. Also does Ukraine still hold Russian territory? Not sure how Putin would feel about bits of Russia being permanently part of Ukraine.
Needless to say Trump is a fecking idiot if he thinks this would be acceptable to Ukraine or to the rest of NATO.
Trump doesn't care - he's viewpoint will be I take it or leave it but we won't be spending another penny on arms for Ukraine..
I agree. But his plan will still be a non starter.
How is it possible for there to be so much crime in a relatively small town like Slough? 63,692 violent crimes against the person in one year.
"Thames Valley Police (TVP) is responsible for tackling crime in Slough, which is one of the most dangerous towns in Berkshire. Over the last year, there have been 12 homicides in Slough and 63,692 violent crimes 'against the person' recorded as well, a rate of 24.98 per 1,000 people in the population. Meanwhile, there were 147,910 'victim-based crimes' recorded, covering a wide range of offences from sexual offences to stealing and criminal damage."
Hang on - according to wiki Slough has a population of 143K - that quote (63K and 24.98) implies a population of 2.5 Million. Something doesn't smell right.
It's a bog standard basic error from a lazy journalist writing for a lazy newspaper. No second party sanity check, by the look of it.
The population and crime figures are for the entire TVP area. I think all they have done is to replace "Thames Valley Police Are" (pop. ~2.35 million) with "Slough". AFAICS the actual numbers are quoted correctly.
Neglecting *any* part of the process can be fatal.
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister. The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
I often think that in the 1990s, in countries like the UK, US, Australia, etc, we had the closest thing to contented societies. The story since then has been of messing it up, making the wrong decisions.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Were this Putin / Trump was 20 years younger I could see him running as Vice President with the President as a figurehead.
But Trump will be heading for retirement / retired on medical reasons / dead in 4 years and that is likely to mean it's Vance / the appointed vice president seeking their first full term.
More to the point, he's constitutionally barred from standing as VP.
In which case the Putin playbook would be to become secretary of state - but as I said he's too old for this to matter.
I suspect the question of who becomes VP once Vance becomes President comes down to how Trump leaves power. If managed I could easily see Ivanka becoming Vice President...
VP candidate, Vance would have to win the 2028 election to become President first unless he already is as Trump has been impeached and removed or resigned Nixon 1974 style leaving VP Ford as POTUS
I don't see Trump being President in 2028 - health is going to get him before then...
I think there is another angle. Among many personalities flaws, Trump cannot ever accept losing, he wants everybody to know he is a winner, that he never loses at anything. He can now walk away claiming to be a winner, the greatest comeback America hasss everrrr seennn, it was beautiful, everybody said so.....
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
I agree. But that is a parental choice, not something that should be enforced by law. Facebook has a minimum age of 12 I believe. But once you get to secondary school in the UK everything revolves around social media and online comms. It is just a fact of life.
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
Russia has invaded Ukraine, Georgia, Moldova (not in NATO), but not Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia (in NATO)
Membership of NATO makes a massive difference, and Putin isn't going to invade any NATO member any time soon.
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister. The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
Looks like Germany is returning to traditional dividing lines with the FDP joining the CDU in opposition and the SDP staying in power for now with the Greens.
At the moment the AfD share though means neither block likely gets a majority at the next Federal election, so the likeliest outcome is another CDU and SPD grand coalition again as was the case from 2005-2009 and 2009-2021
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
Plus I imagine like the rest of us during lockdown or was the only outlet for social interaction.
Of course that says a lot more about the folly of lockdown than anything else but I think it is how many people of all ages interact now.
It's an absurd and no doubt unworkable plan. Just showboating.
The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO is so it can invade again in a few years with impunity. There is no other motivation.
I'm not seeing what's in this 'deal' for Ukraine.
And I'm not seeing what's in it for Europe, either: ..The WSJ reports that one idea proposed within Trump’s transition office would involve Ukraine promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the US would reportedly continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid to deter future Russian aggression.
Under this proposal, the current front lines in the war would essentially be locked in place, with both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to “an 800-mile demilitarized zone” along the frontline. The Wall Street Journal notes that the details of who would police this demilitarized zone remain unclear, but one adviser said it would not involve American troops or funding from a US-backed international body like the United Nations.
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team told the WSJ. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.“..
Looks like a non starter to me. Also does Ukraine still hold Russian territory? Not sure how Putin would feel about bits of Russia being permanently part of Ukraine.
Needless to say Trump is a fecking idiot if he thinks this would be acceptable to Ukraine or to the rest of NATO.
Trump doesn't care - he's viewpoint will be I take it or leave it but we won't be spending another penny on arms for Ukraine..
I agree. But his plan will still be a non starter.
Both NATO and the EU are having problems with the requirement for unanimous decisions. The USA can simply say on NATO "we will block Ukraine for 20 years", and that stops them afaics. Similar to the EU being skewered by Putin's buddy, Orban.
I agree Chump is a fecking idiot. He has long been repeating lies to himself and his supporters about how Europe is not contributing much to support for Ukraine.
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister. The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
It is a basic part of the NATO charter. If countries are not willing to respond when asked then NATO becomes utterly meaningless. In effect they stop being part of NATO.
A question to ask: It is clear that people voted for Trump out of a reasonable degree of clarity that it was in their personal self interest to do so, many with a disdain for his character at the same time, though many clearly like his character. (Time will tell how correct they were, but that's a separate matter).
From this side of the pond I can discern why 52% of voters thought this was in their self interest. Add to this the fact that the GOP was not the incumbent president.
Abortion apart (and states deal with that for the moment, so it's different) I cannot discern what self interest especially brought out the vote for Harris. Was it clear to Americans what sort of renewed self interest she was standing on?
Harris seems to have gambled on distaste for Trump (a real thing among most US voters, judging by polls) plus general optimism being enough, with remarkably little in the way of actual policies. I have little idea what Harris would have done as President, and doubt if most American voters had either.
The price for this was the marginal loss of support by enough people in real personal difficulty, for whom the facile optimism may have felt actually insulting, with few gains among people who usually vote Republican. If Harris had set out a distinctive agenda, it might have worked better, but at the price of alienating some Biden supporters. It's not obvious that it would have worked.
What is apparent is that merely having lots of money and well-known names endorsing you doesn't deliver success, even if your opponent isn't especially popular. I think that a few distinctive economic policies benefiting people in difficulty would have been worth the risk - but I'm judging after the event.
I had a bad feeling when I started hearing about all of these endorsements. This was very Corbyn 2017/2019 vibes to me.
I actually think in 2020 Biden seemed to move away from the more left wing approach and ran closer to the centre. It’s not that Harris actually ran to the left, she didn’t run as anything!
Biden brought seemingly some more Trump inclined voters with him. Harris said bye bye to them.
Political parties having multimillionaire Hollywood stars telling you what's good for you and how you should vote is something that really winds me up. Did you see that embarrassing "zoom" call with the Avengers cast in support of Harris? It was the sort of thing that makes you feel uncomfortable watching.
I only saw that clip yesterday. It was as cringey as that “Imagine” video from the start of Covid.
The Oprah virtual rally? I only saw the bit with Meryl Streep but it was utterly cringeworthy.
Maybe what’s been defeated is the Oprahfication of America.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only.
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Interesting question. Can someone be elected VP after having been President twice and therefore get a partial 3rd term after the President dies/steps down?
I think the VP isn't put into the line of succession in this scenario. It just skips over the VP directly to the majority leader.
As I understand it, you can't come VP if you are ineligible to be President.
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
12th Amendment, IIRC.
Is he ineligible? The words quoted only say you can't be *elected* more than twice
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
It is a basic part of the NATO charter. If countries are not willing to respond when asked then NATO becomes utterly meaningless. In effect they stop being part of NATO.
Actually, the NATO response is entirely up to the member states. This was key point in the original design of the alliance - to *prevent* the automatic go-to-war built into previous alliances.
I recall @MoonRabbit was a bit startled when I explained this in the run up to the current Ukraine conflict - if a NATO member is attacked, no NATO member is *obligated* to do anything.
But if they do not help then, as I say, NATO ceeases to exist to all intents and purposes. Who will bother to stay in the organisatin if they are hung out to dry the first time they are attacked?
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
Following poll herding we’re now getting PB herding on how uniquely terrible Harris was as a candidate.
Just a couple days too late lads.
Some PBers did point six months ago that the top five in the Dem candidate betting - Biden, Harris, Hillary, Michelle, Newsom - were all unelectable.
Biden clearly wasn't pre dementia given his win in 2020, Michelle may also have won this year who knows
Michelle Obama has no experience in, or apparent interest in elective political office, for herself.
What the Democrats need is a seasoned Governor, with deep political experience, who can build a coalition across the party. And combine it with a coalition *outside the party*.
See Bill Clinton for a master class in this.
Though if the economy is poor even a liberal Senator can win, as Obama did in 2008 despite the Bush and GOP win in 2004
A very interesting survey. I'm sure others will have raised this point, but what immediately leaps to my mind is that men are justifiably fed up with the way they've been belittled and denigrated over decades.
Good morning, everybody.
It's worse than that Anne.
My wife has convinced me - from her own experiences- that women are often not listened to or taken as seriously unless they have strong confidence or natural gravitas, and they don't ask for salary rises as much. That leads them- together with things like maternity interludes - to do a lot of work but often to fall behind in their careers. They need more gravitas coaching, support and mentoring and more listening. And how everyone can collaborate and understand better. But we don't get that. What we get is a lot of Wokery and Wokestanding about white men being a problem, men being sexist, quotas, hectoring and soft discrimination based on EDI ideology. None of it delivers any change at all, but it makes its priests feel good.
So you actually get the worst of all worlds: pointless grandstanding that alienates people, pisses them off, and drives real polarisation, whilst not doing anything whatsoever to solve the problem.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only.
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Interesting question. Can someone be elected VP after having been President twice and therefore get a partial 3rd term after the President dies/steps down?
No. There's a clause somewhere that say nobody who is uneligible to be President can be Vice-President. Which makes sense when you think about it.
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
I agree. But that is a parental choice, not something that should be enforced by law. Facebook has a minimum age of 12 I believe. But once you get to secondary school in the UK everything revolves around social media and online comms. It is just a fact of life.
But legal limits both support those parents who are resisting peer pressure, and sends a clear signal to those many parents who seem to be sleepwalking into allowing harm to their children. Many countries have a legal limit of 13 - Norway is increasing this to 15.
Of course these things are difficult to enforce, but it sends a strong signal, and I think will be popular with parents currently battling this tsunami of addictive shit aimed at our children.
The only reason Russia doesn't want Ukraine in NATO is so it can invade again in a few years with impunity. There is no other motivation.
I'm not seeing what's in this 'deal' for Ukraine.
And I'm not seeing what's in it for Europe, either: ..The WSJ reports that one idea proposed within Trump’s transition office would involve Ukraine promising not to join NATO for at least 20 years. In exchange, the US would reportedly continue to provide Ukraine with weapons and other military aid to deter future Russian aggression.
Under this proposal, the current front lines in the war would essentially be locked in place, with both Ukraine and Russia agreeing to “an 800-mile demilitarized zone” along the frontline. The Wall Street Journal notes that the details of who would police this demilitarized zone remain unclear, but one adviser said it would not involve American troops or funding from a US-backed international body like the United Nations.
“We can do training and other support, but the barrel of the gun is going to be European,” a member of Trump’s team told the WSJ. “We are not sending American men and women to uphold peace in Ukraine. And we are not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British and French to do it.“..
I am trying to imagine the look on the Schultz's face, when told to come up with German troops to defend the Ukraine border.
I am trying to imagine the look on the Putin's face, when told that German troops will be present in Ukraine.
I may be wrong but he was one of the last National Liberal MPs - he represented St Ives in Cornwall for a number of years.
Just as an aside, is there any other constituency where the Conservative and Liberal Democrat candidates have been the same at the last FIVE General Elections - Andrew George beat Derek Thomas in 2010 and 2024 while Thomas took the seat in 2015 and held it in both 2017 and 2019?
On an adjacent note, is there a constituency where the same person has stood for THREE different parties?
The Leeanderthal Man has stood for both the Tories and Reform. Has anyone stood for more parties?
George Galloway has stood for Labour, Respect, as an independent, Workers Party and All for Unity in different elections, but not in the same constituency.
Dave Nellist stood for Coventry South East as Labour and then as independent labour. There were then boundary changes, so he stood for Coventry South for the Socialist Party. He then switched to a different Coventry constituency, Coventry North East, and stood there for the Socialist Party and then for the TUSC. In between, he also stood in local elections in Coventry for Militant Labour and in European elections for No2EU.
Dick Taverne stood for Labour and then Democratic Labour in Lincoln. He later stood for the SDP, but in a different constituency, and later in life was a Liberal Democrat council candidate.
James Kilfedder won several elections in North Down for the UUP, then won in 1979 as an independent unionist, and then won in 1983 for the new UPUP. He kept winning as a UPUP candidate through to 1992. North Down later saw Lady Hermon win successively for the UUP and then successively as an independent. Most recently, Alex Easton lost in 2019 as the DUP candidate, but won this year as an independent.
I often think that in the 1990s, in countries like the UK, US, Australia, etc, we had the closest thing to contented societies. The story since then has been of messing it up, making the wrong decisions.
There was a massive peace dividend and a rapid expansion of wealth following the internet. The preconditions for happiness are stability in a tolerable environment and gradually rising real wealth. Give most people a nice 3-bed house in a nice area and a 5-10% real pay rise pa and they will love it. Small changes in a positive direction.
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister. The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
Yes, a much more accurate take than the shit one posted earlier from the Telegraph 'Lindner fired for wanting to stimulate the economy'. Why anyone would get any info from the Telegraph these days is a mystery.
The FDP has been wrecking the government for many months with its opposition to suspending the debt brake, and Scholz should have forced the issue a year ago, but unfortunately he's just not a leader.
Reeves should have just welched on her income tax promise. "It's just so bad we had no choice". The NI and MW increases together are inflationary for food.
Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.
He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.
Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.
This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
Ahahahahahaha
My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers. In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.
Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point
“I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.
Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.
I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
You keep saying this, and every time people respond with "I would cut x" and you ignore them.
Last time we had this conversation, I gave the specific example where my council was spending £3 million* to make my journey to work slower, on a road that isn't dangerous. That's on one road about 12 miles long. How many times over are they doing that all over the country?
That's just one specific example, but it's repeated endlessly. My town has a shiny new roundabout, again £3 million quid. It exists to provide access to a patch of land which the council wanted to put in the local plan for housing. There was massive local opposition, (the land in question is a popular open public space), in the end they backed down and put somewhere else in the local plan instead. But they built the roundabout anyway. So now we have a £3 million quid roundabout to no-where.
Note, both of these schemes are probably classed as CapEx, so can come out of Rachel's extra borrowing, to ensure we get to pay for them for year and years to come.
*Plus all the money spent preparing bids for the money from central government, getting planning permission from themselves etc. etc.
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
Well, yes. But the context is a discussion about Trump trying to force Ukraine into a ceasefire with no guarantees.
Trump is saying he wants the US to have zero skin in the game. If that is really the case, then he should therefore have no real say in what Ukraine and Europe decide between them.
Reeves should have just welched on her income tax promise. "It's just so bad we had no choice". The NI and MW increases together are inflationary for food.
Labour setup the narrative to do that too. They give it here is a £22, no £40, no £100bn blackhole....
Instead everybody thinks they broke their promises anyway, so might as well made the better of a range of bad decisions.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
Following poll herding we’re now getting PB herding on how uniquely terrible Harris was as a candidate.
Just a couple days too late lads.
Some PBers did point six months ago that the top five in the Dem candidate betting - Biden, Harris, Hillary, Michelle, Newsom - were all unelectable.
Biden clearly wasn't pre dementia given his win in 2020, Michelle may also have won this year who knows
Michelle Obama has no experience in, or apparent interest in elective political office, for herself.
What the Democrats need is a seasoned Governor, with deep political experience, who can build a coalition across the party. And combine it with a coalition *outside the party*.
See Bill Clinton for a master class in this.
That could easily be someone like Shapiro by 2028.
I don't know what to make of Buttigieg's chances. He has absolutely remarkable skills as a political communicator - see his attitude to going on Fox, and regularly destroying them in argument, while coming across as courteous at the same time.
But what's he going to do now ? Run for a governorship himself ? Is there a possible Senate seat in 2026 ?
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
Reeves should have just welched on her income tax promise. "It's just so bad we had no choice". The NI and MW increases together are inflationary for food.
Labour setup the narrative to do that too. They give it here is a £22, no £40, no £100bn blackhole....
Instead everybody thinks they broke their promises anyway, so might as well made the better of a range of bad decisions.
The thing she shouldn't have gone back on is carried interest. Those with the broadest shoulders have demonstrated they have surplus cash to spend on lobbying
We're continually told that Trump would not defend NATO and that Orban would block it.
Either western countries are willing to defend Ukraine or they're not.
Whether Ukraine applies to join NATO or not is pretty irrelevant.
If Ukraine is in NATO though other NATO members are obliged to send troops and jets to defend it and engage in combat with Russian troops and planes. Whereas now as a non NATO member it only receives arms and aid
And who is going to force them to meet these obligations ?
Either they are willing to do so or they're not.
It is a basic part of the NATO charter. If countries are not willing to respond when asked then NATO becomes utterly meaningless. In effect they stop being part of NATO.
Actually, the NATO response is entirely up to the member states. This was key point in the original design of the alliance - to *prevent* the automatic go-to-war built into previous alliances.
I recall @MoonRabbit was a bit startled when I explained this in the run up to the current Ukraine conflict - if a NATO member is attacked, no NATO member is *obligated* to do anything.
Only by their own self interest as a fellow member, also reliant on the NATO guarantee.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I think its not actually the rate so much as the massive reduction in the threshold. Halving the threshold when it kicks in has a huge effect, particularly supermarkets who have very flexible working practices, lots of part timers. Plus significant increase in minimum wage.
Also remember, supermarkets, they run on very very thin margins and hyper-efficient supply chain. Its massive volume on tiny margin, because of sector wide competition.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Depends on your profit margins, as it will come straight off the bottom line. I don't imagine this will effect Sainsbury's much as they will just screw their suppliers more as they, and all supermarkets, do. It is other businesses that will be hit hard
Not sure you realise how extreme this is. In the 1970s or 80s the equivalent would be locking kids in their rooms until they reached 16. The sort of thing that would get you done for child abuse. The internet and social media is that ingrained in the lives of young people.
What age limit do you think is right then? There is a difference between the internet and social media.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
I agree. But that is a parental choice, not something that should be enforced by law. Facebook has a minimum age of 12 I believe. But once you get to secondary school in the UK everything revolves around social media and online comms. It is just a fact of life.
But legal limits both support those parents who are resisting peer pressure, and sends a clear signal to those many parents who seem to be sleepwalking into allowing harm to their children. Many countries have a legal limit of 13 - Norway is increasing this to 15.
Of course these things are difficult to enforce, but it sends a strong signal, and I think will be popular with parents currently battling this tsunami of addictive shit aimed at our children.
All law enforcement is difficult and imperfect. All civil order depends on the great majority voluntarily maintaining it. Many laws in fact give a steer as to what is socially desired and little more, and many social reforms are effected by nudges and socially regulated norms.
Younger people in large numbers will transgress boundaries. That is what being young is all about for many (including, once upon a time, me). If you don't have fairly tight boundaries young people will find even more dangerous boundaries to cross.
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Were this Putin / Trump was 20 years younger I could see him running as Vice President with the President as a figurehead.
But Trump will be heading for retirement / retired on medical reasons / dead in 4 years and that is likely to mean it's Vance / the appointed vice president seeking their first full term.
More to the point, he's constitutionally barred from standing as VP.
In which case the Putin playbook would be to become secretary of state - but as I said he's too old for this to matter.
I suspect the question of who becomes VP once Vance becomes President comes down to how Trump leaves power. If managed I could easily see Ivanka becoming Vice President...
VP candidate, Vance would have to win the 2028 election to become President first unless he already is as Trump has been impeached and removed or resigned Nixon 1974 style leaving VP Ford as POTUS
I don't see Trump being President in 2028 - health is going to get him before then...
I think there is another angle. Among many personalities flaws, Trump cannot ever accept losing, he wants everybody to know he is a winner, that he never loses at anything. He can now walk away claiming to be a winner, the greatest comeback America hasss everrrr seennn, it was beautiful, everybody said so.....
There was a conversation about how to handle Trump as one of his staff members on The Rest ins Politics in their third Election livestream, with Anthony Scaramucci.
What it amounts to is that Trump knows almost nothing about almost everything, and has to have it explained to him like a 13 year old boy child who has just come into a huge fortune. His ego has to be masturbated, and he focuses entirely on the style rather than the substance. It is all personal impact on him and his self-image. He will deal with something he does not like, or cannot understand without turning his brain on, by going for the messenger.
Janet & John would be too challenging.
This is Alistair Campbell talking to Anthony Scaramucci, who was on the Trump team, and is now an opponent. Scaramucci comes across to me as a normal USA administration cynical organisation man. About 15 minutes.
There's one anecdote how he explained the middle east to Trump by talking about the film "Lawrence of Arabia", which Trump saw as a child. Trump si handled liek a backward, disinterested King.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I think its not actually the rate so much as the massive reduction in the threshold. Halving the threshold when it kicks in has a huge effect, particularly supermarkets who have very flexible working practices, lots of part timers.
Supermarkets have built their staffing around a lot of people doing 16 hours a week.
And previously 16 hours a week was the point at which employer NI (at £175 a week).
Now it kicks in after about 8 hours of work so suddenly supermarkets have a lot of workers earning wages were Employer NI needs to be paid..
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
There was someone on (cough) Loose Women (cough) yesterday who was making that very point. It's similar to the situation here; we had price rises of 12-15% over 12-15 months up till about a year ago, and now those rises have slowed. Prices haven't subsequently gone down, though, so we're at a higher base than we were, while, AFAIK wages are now just about catching up. For some occupations.
Reeves should have just welched on her income tax promise. "It's just so bad we had no choice". The NI and MW increases together are inflationary for food.
Or, she could have tried being a Blairite and not a Socialist.
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
I've seen multiple stories about people in the US eating out less often because they can't afford to do so.
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I think its not actually the rate so much as the massive reduction in the threshold. Halving the threshold when it kicks in has a huge effect, particularly supermarkets who have very flexible working practices, lots of part timers. Plus significant increase in minimum wage.
Also remember, supermarkets, they run on very very thin margins and hyper-efficient supply chain. Its massive volume on tiny margin, because of sector wide competition.
The former threshold has been patently used by employers as a tax (NI) dodging scam, by employing loads of people on limited hours. It is one of the ways in which good employers are driven out by bad - Gresham's law.
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
I've seen multiple stories about people in the US eating out less often because they can't afford to do so.
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
Yes. I have mentioned this. US culture is you grab food on the go for several meals of the day and eat out a lot more than here.
Mrs U was in the US last month and came back going WTF at cost of eating out, even cheapo chains. Where as it used to be too cheap if anything. And the tipping on top. 20% minimum.
Taking your kids to McDonalds and it costing $50...that is proper shock.
Worth remember, what did Trump as a stunt, he read out the Cheesecake Factory Menu and the price increases. For those that don't know, The Cheesecake Factory is what lower and middle class Americans think as the place to go for a nice special occasion meal. Everybody knows that chain and it is very popular.
I lost too much on 2024 to have any stakes available for 2028!
Did you pile on Harris PV ?
Yeah. That was where I totally fucked it.
in a lot of ways that was an obvious bet - from here we simply didn't see how unpopular Harris was...
She was ahead in almost all the final polls and models in the PV, so I thought 1.4-1.5 value, and I thought Trump never would given how polarising he was and the fact no Republican had done it for 20 years.
CNN has a story titled “where the Harris campaign went wrong.”
Nope, I won’t read it.
Harris ran a great campaign.
The story should be titled “where the American people went wrong.” 1:20 PM · Nov 6, 2024
120k likes on that.
If the Democrats spend the next 4 years blaming voters as they seem to want to do now then it's all over.
After the uprising of the 17th June The Secretary of the Writers Union Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee Stating that the people Had forfeited the confidence of the government And could win it back only By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier In that case for the government To dissolve the people And elect another?
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I think its not actually the rate so much as the massive reduction in the threshold. Halving the threshold when it kicks in has a huge effect, particularly supermarkets who have very flexible working practices, lots of part timers.
Supermarkets have built their staffing around a lot of people doing 16 hours a week.
And previously 16 hours a week was the point at which employer NI (at £175 a week).
Now it kicks in after about 8 hours of work so suddenly supermarkets have a lot of workers earning wages were Employer NI needs to be paid..
Now that makes what Sainsbury's boss said make a lot more sense.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Depends on your profit margins, as it will come straight off the bottom line. I don't imagine this will effect Sainsbury's much as they will just screw their suppliers more as they, and all supermarkets, do. It is other businesses that will be hit hard
Who in turn will screw over the employees by freezing pay for 3 years as the OBR has predicted.
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
I've seen multiple stories about people in the US eating out less often because they can't afford to do so.
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
What has happened, is a version of the post COVID inflation we have had here. Prices of some things have gone up in whole multiples.
America used have really cheaply/mid restaurant food, relative to average income, for example.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Depends on your profit margins, as it will come straight off the bottom line. I don't imagine this will effect Sainsbury's much as they will just screw their suppliers more as they, and all supermarkets, do. It is other businesses that will be hit hard
The Sainsbury's numbers sound like normal special interest group squealing.
See farmers and IHT, or well off pensioners spending £1000-2000 a year looking after their dogs who are suddenly going to starve this afternoon because they have lost £150 or £300 in heating bill benefit.
Sainsbury's claim the cost will be £140 million. Their turnover is £36 billion per annum.
So the extra cost is 0.38% of turnover. For a single hit that is unlikely to have much more on top, that does not seem to be an existential threat.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I think its not actually the rate so much as the massive reduction in the threshold. Halving the threshold when it kicks in has a huge effect, particularly supermarkets who have very flexible working practices, lots of part timers. Plus significant increase in minimum wage.
Also remember, supermarkets, they run on very very thin margins and hyper-efficient supply chain. Its massive volume on tiny margin, because of sector wide competition.
The former threshold has been patently used by employers as a tax (NI) dodging scam, by employing loads of people on limited hours. It is one of the ways in which good employers are driven out by bad - Gresham's law.
It wasn't a scam - it was a deliberate policy by the government, to make it easy for people on benefits to do *some* work.
The fact that it creates a trap where working more than 16 hours has little effect on net income was foreseen and commented on at the time.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
The NI hike and the rise in the NMW between them put around 10% on the cost of a full time employee on the NMW. That's a big hit if your business runs on lots of cheap labour.
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Depends on your profit margins, as it will come straight off the bottom line. I don't imagine this will effect Sainsbury's much as they will just screw their suppliers more as they, and all supermarkets, do. It is other businesses that will be hit hard
Who in turn will screw over the employees by freezing pay for 3 years as the OBR has predicted.
Again this is why Labour's budget was so illogical. This NI rise is going to hit the lower paid the worst as business will pass on the vast bulk of the costs, not just of NI, but new labour rights, etc. The cost / benefit analysis is very clear at that level. People being employed on a £100k a year, businesses aren't penny pinching their labour, getting the right person costs £1000s to recruit anyway.
I lost too much on 2024 to have any stakes available for 2028!
Did you pile on Harris PV ?
Yeah. That was where I totally fucked it.
The PV market was out of sync with the other markets, despite the historical Dem margin on PV vs EC result. Trump at 4 could have been very profitable for those who were backing Trump on the other markets
If anyone fancies an “exotic travel challenge” I can recommend a stay in a completely Korean, zero foreigners (apart from mongolians??!) corner of Seoul
For dinner I ended up with a small cauldron of perpetually boiling clams. Plus a bowl of hula hoops
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister. The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
Looks like Germany is returning to traditional dividing lines with the FDP joining the CDU in opposition and the SDP staying in power for now with the Greens.
At the moment the AfD share though means neither block likely gets a majority at the next Federal election, so the likeliest outcome is another CDU and SPD grand coalition again as was the case from 2005-2009 and 2009-2021
The SPD would surely be extremely reluctant to join another grand coalition as the junior partner. It could be the death of them. Is a CDU/CSU coalition with the AfD still out of the question?
Afternoon all. Or it may well be by the time this gets actually read.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise. I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
Depends on your profit margins, as it will come straight off the bottom line. I don't imagine this will effect Sainsbury's much as they will just screw their suppliers more as they, and all supermarkets, do. It is other businesses that will be hit hard
The Sainsbury's numbers sound like normal special interest group squealing.
See farmers and IHT, or well off pensioners spending £1000-2000 a year looking after their dogs who are suddenly going to starve this afternoon because they have lost £150 or £300 in heating bill benefit.
Sainsbury's claim the cost will be £140 million. Their turnover is £36 billion per annum.
So the extra cost is 0.38% of turnover. For a single hit that is unlikely to have much more on top, that does not seem to be an existential threat.
It's not an existential threat. However....
"In the financial year ending March second in 2024, Sainsbury's recorded a profit of 277 million British pounds before tax and 137 million British pounds after tax."
In that context, £140 million is a lot of money.
The response by Sainsburys and other retailers, will be to put up prices and squeeze suppliers.
CNN has a story titled “where the Harris campaign went wrong.”
Nope, I won’t read it.
Harris ran a great campaign.
The story should be titled “where the American people went wrong.” 1:20 PM · Nov 6, 2024
120k likes on that.
If the Democrats spend the next 4 years blaming voters as they seem to want to do now then it's all over.
There are two campaigns. One of them has to lose. The idea that everything the losing campaign did was a mistake and everything the winning campaign did was genius is a nonsense. Particularly when the result wasn’t a landslide.
The 2028 election will also be very different. There will be 2 new candidates. The background will be entirely different. There’s a limit to what a campaign post mortem can tell the Democrats about what to do in 4 years time.
I don’t think the losing side need to work out what happened and why today. Let them lick their wounds. I’m certain they won’t spend the next 4 years blaming the voters. In practice, some time in 2025, they’ll be working out what their 2026 midterms strategy is. There’s no reason to presume one post on Twitter represents anything of note!
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
I've seen multiple stories about people in the US eating out less often because they can't afford to do so.
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
Yes. I have mentioned this. US culture is you grab food on the go for several meals of the day and eat out a lot more than here.
Mrs U was in the US last month and came back going WTF at cost of eating out, even cheapo chains. Where as it used to be too cheap if anything. And the tipping on top. 20% minimum.
Taking your kids to McDonalds and it costing $50...that is proper shock.
Worth remember, what did Trump as a stunt, he read out the Cheesecake Factory Menu and the price increases. For those that don't know, The Cheesecake Factory is what lower and middle class Americans think as the place to go for a nice special occasion meal. Everybody knows that chain and it is very popular.
One of my American friends was saying that fast food has become so expensive in LA that it's now better to get a takeaway from casual dining restaurants because the price difference is so small now.
She's moving to London in March and staying with us for a few weeks while she gets her own place sorted out but she was saying one of the things she's looking forwards to most is not having to pay 25-30% tips.
For someone who left public life in 1983 he's still quite well-remembered, which is interesting.
I remember him for walking out of an interview
And remembering that interview with Robin Day I don't blame him for doing so. The here today gone tomorrow comment was very rude.
Didn't Sir Humphrey say that the average tenure of a Minister was 10..months.. not sure if it's true.. here today gone tomorrow isn't that rude if factual.....
Robin Day's here today gone tomorrow was quoting Nott himself. It was probably the defence cuts Nott was sensitive about.
"On 6 November, Olaf Scholz fired Christian Lindner as finance minister . The decision marks the formal end of the three-party coalition – between the Social Democrats (SDP), Greens and Free Democratic Party (FDP), the latter of which Lindner leads. Hr was fired after refusing to accept Scholz’s order to declare a state of fiscal emergency that would allow the government to bypass the rules of the debt brake, which limits the government’s ability to borrow money. Scholz went on national TV to declare that he wants to set aside money to support Ukraine, and for an increase in defence spending that has now become necessary after the victory of Trump. He also said he would not accept a trade-off of taking funds earmarked for social policies. This will be the theme of the election campaign – and the new dividing line in German politics."
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
I've seen multiple stories about people in the US eating out less often because they can't afford to do so.
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
Yes. I have mentioned this. US culture is you grab food on the go for several meals of the day and eat out a lot more than here.
Mrs U was in the US last month and came back going WTF at cost of eating out, even cheapo chains. Where as it used to be too cheap if anything. And the tipping on top. 20% minimum.
Taking your kids to McDonalds and it costing $50...that is proper shock.
Worth remember, what did Trump as a stunt, he read out the Cheesecake Factory Menu and the price increases. For those that don't know, The Cheesecake Factory is what lower and middle class Americans think as the place to go for a nice special occasion meal. Everybody knows that chain and it is very popular.
One of my American friends was saying that fast food has become so expensive in LA that it's now better to get a takeaway from casual dining restaurants because the price difference is so small now.
She's moving to London in March and staying with us for a few weeks while she gets her own place sorted out but she was saying one of the things she's looking forwards to most is not having to pay 25-30% tips.
I need to go to the US for an extended period next year, currently looking at accommodation options and feeling ill just looking at those costs...let alone the constant tipping that is totally out of control now (despite minimum wage levels rises significantly in lots of states).
Can someone please confirm that a swing of approx 1% in just three key states would have won Harris the election and the three states were Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Just checking for a friend who doesn't believe me.
Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.
He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.
Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.
This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
Ahahahahahaha
My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers. In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.
Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point
“I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.
Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.
I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
You keep saying this, and every time people respond with "I would cut x" and you ignore them.
Last time we had this conversation, I gave the specific example where my council was spending £3 million* to make my journey to work slower, on a road that isn't dangerous. That's on one road about 12 miles long. How many times over are they doing that all over the country?
That's just one specific example, but it's repeated endlessly. My town has a shiny new roundabout, again £3 million quid. It exists to provide access to a patch of land which the council wanted to put in the local plan for housing. There was massive local opposition, (the land in question is a popular open public space), in the end they backed down and put somewhere else in the local plan instead. But they built the roundabout anyway. So now we have a £3 million quid roundabout to no-where.
Note, both of these schemes are probably classed as CapEx, so can come out of Rachel's extra borrowing, to ensure we get to pay for them for year and years to come.
*Plus all the money spent preparing bids for the money from central government, getting planning permission from themselves etc. etc.
Does this not fit the principle that we are supposed to build infra first, rather than spending 3x as much and disrupting by then established transport networks to shoehorn it in later?
Tbh I can see the ticket for 2028 being Vance/Trump.
Eric or Ivanka? Trump Sr can't run again for POTUS under the constitution and I can't see him being interested in being VP only
'No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice' - 22nd amendment of US constitution
Were this Putin / Trump was 20 years younger I could see him running as Vice President with the President as a figurehead.
But Trump will be heading for retirement / retired on medical reasons / dead in 4 years and that is likely to mean it's Vance / the appointed vice president seeking their first full term.
More to the point, he's constitutionally barred from standing as VP.
In which case the Putin playbook would be to become secretary of state - but as I said he's too old for this to matter.
I suspect the question of who becomes VP once Vance becomes President comes down to how Trump leaves power. If managed I could easily see Ivanka becoming Vice President...
VP candidate, Vance would have to win the 2028 election to become President first unless he already is as Trump has been impeached and removed or resigned Nixon 1974 style leaving VP Ford as POTUS
I'd be wary of long-term bets on Vance. Prices around 3/1 are not absurdly generous and Trump has a long and glorious history of falling out with his political subordinates, and Vance was not even his own choice. It might be a question of who leaves the White House first.
Whatever happens, if Starmer does not do something on the economy for working class people, he will be out on his ear.
He’s made some good steps like raising the minimum wage and giving public sector workers a decent pay rise for the first time in years.
Labours secret weapon in this space is the trade unions. Much derided by their opponents, they’re brilliant at keeping Labour grounded and connected.
Plus lower immigration, a ban on no-fault evictions, and the workers' rights bill which has some major reforms (and makes the gig economy much better). Together, they make life significantly better for people at the bottom end of the income distribution.
This stuff is tangible and easy to point at during a political campaign. Labour have really hit the ground running in this respect.
Ahahahahahaha
My 'at the bottom end of the income distribution' friends spent most of our conversation on Tuesday evening bemoaning all the local hotels which had been given over to asylum seekers. In a thoughtful and nuanced and sympathetic way. But also in a way expeessingsome drustration that there were just so many and thag tbis can't be a good use of public omney.
Here is a piercing and very relevant question from a Reform MP, on this exact point
“I questioned the Labour Minister in the House on whether assaulting British family farms for £520 million a year is the right thing to do when £3 billion last year was spent on hotels for illegal migrants.
Absolute madness. And this insane bill is only going to get worse. Labour hasn’t got a clue
Trump's just blown Reeves' budget to bits. She may be wise to have another go next Spring. As Heath is pointing out in Telegraph, as one example, likely if US is to stay with NATO it will now demand 3% GDP on defence as entrance fee.
That's going to result in a straight increase in income tax or VAT then blamed on Trump. There is no other way to raise the money required and you can't attach it to NI.
We can cut our absurdly bloated and pampered public sector in other ways. You know, the one that just committed £11 billion more in "climate aid", whatever that is, or £22 billion in pay increases for public sector workers.
So apart from things Ed Miliband is wasting money on (won't argue there carbon capture is a waste of money) - any ideas where else you can actually cut things.
I've asked before and it's strange that no-one comes up with actual areas where money can be saved. And please don't say staff as I will point at the NHS spending on agency staff and attach reports that show people are working through agencies because of their living costs..
You keep saying this, and every time people respond with "I would cut x" and you ignore them.
Last time we had this conversation, I gave the specific example where my council was spending £3 million* to make my journey to work slower, on a road that isn't dangerous. That's on one road about 12 miles long. How many times over are they doing that all over the country?
That's just one specific example, but it's repeated endlessly. My town has a shiny new roundabout, again £3 million quid. It exists to provide access to a patch of land which the council wanted to put in the local plan for housing. There was massive local opposition, (the land in question is a popular open public space), in the end they backed down and put somewhere else in the local plan instead. But they built the roundabout anyway. So now we have a £3 million quid roundabout to no-where.
Note, both of these schemes are probably classed as CapEx, so can come out of Rachel's extra borrowing, to ensure we get to pay for them for year and years to come.
*Plus all the money spent preparing bids for the money from central government, getting planning permission from themselves etc. etc.
Does this not fit the principle that we are supposed to build infra first, rather than spending 3x as much and disrupting by then established transport networks to shoehorn it in later?
Also, it's much easier see with hindsight which projects were a waste of money than it is to say in advance which projects will be a waste of money.
The Guardian has just posted that "Mike Amesbury, the MP suspended by Labour pending an investigation, has been charged with assault after an incident following a night out."According to Cheshire Police.
CNN has a story titled “where the Harris campaign went wrong.”
Nope, I won’t read it.
Harris ran a great campaign.
The story should be titled “where the American people went wrong.” 1:20 PM · Nov 6, 2024
120k likes on that.
If the Democrats spend the next 4 years blaming voters as they seem to want to do now then it's all over.
I'm not sure that's true. The Democrats and their allies in the liberal media spent four years blaming the Deplorables for electing Trump in 2016 and still won in 2020. Same with GWB in 2004 and then 2008.
A prissy, self-righteous sense of their own virtue and superiority is a characteristic of the modern left, but they sometimes win elections despite that. And don't forget in 2028 you're not going to have the ghastly but apparently weirdly charismatic figure of Trump running. Had the sniper been a slightly better shot in July I can't see Vance pulling off the victory Trump just did.
Comments
I am trying to imagine the look on the Putin's face, when told that German troops will be present in Ukraine.
"But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States."
12th Amendment, IIRC.
Dave Nellist stood for Coventry South East as Labour and then as independent labour. There were then boundary changes, so he stood for Coventry South for the Socialist Party. He then switched to a different Coventry constituency, Coventry North East, and stood there for the Socialist Party and then for the TUSC. In between, he also stood in local elections in Coventry for Militant Labour and in European elections for No2EU.
*(Depending on how you view the Lib/SDP merger)
Our statement on the result of the 2024 election.
https://x.com/BillClinton/status/1854306162247602653
I recall @MoonRabbit was a bit startled when I explained this in the run up to the current Ukraine conflict - if a NATO member is attacked, no NATO member is *obligated* to do anything.
My child is 10 and there is no way in hell he is going on TikTok or BeReal any time soon.
The population and crime figures are for the entire TVP area. I think all they have done is to replace "Thames Valley Police Are" (pop. ~2.35 million) with "Slough". AFAICS the actual numbers are quoted correctly.
Neglecting *any* part of the process can be fatal.
It's a 15 second fact check:
https://www.thamesvalley.police.uk/SysSiteAssets/foi-media/thames-valley-police/priorities_and_how_we_are_doing/performance-figures/summary-of-notifiable-offences-in-thames-valley-october-2023-to-september-2024.pdf
https://www.newstatesman.com/international-politics/2024/11/collapse-german-government-finance-minister
Membership of NATO makes a massive difference, and Putin isn't going to invade any NATO member any time soon.
At the moment the AfD share though means neither block likely gets a majority at the next Federal election, so the likeliest outcome is another CDU and SPD grand coalition again as was the case from 2005-2009 and 2009-2021
Of course that says a lot more about the folly of lockdown than anything else but I think it is how many people of all ages interact now.
It's an absurd and no doubt unworkable plan. Just showboating.
I agree Chump is a fecking idiot. He has long been repeating lies to himself and his supporters about how Europe is not contributing much to support for Ukraine.
Maybe what’s been defeated is the Oprahfication of America.
https://www.youtube.com/live/bZasBoVhuUA
"The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognized by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area."
My wife has convinced me - from her own experiences- that women are often not listened to or taken as seriously unless they have strong confidence or natural gravitas, and they don't ask for salary rises as much. That leads them- together with things like maternity interludes - to do a lot of work but often to fall behind in their careers. They need more gravitas coaching, support and mentoring and more listening. And how everyone can collaborate and understand better. But we don't get that. What we get is a lot of Wokery and Wokestanding about white men being a problem, men being sexist, quotas, hectoring and soft discrimination based on EDI ideology. None of it delivers any change at all, but it makes its priests feel good.
So you actually get the worst of all worlds: pointless grandstanding that alienates people, pisses them off, and drives real polarisation, whilst not doing anything whatsoever to solve the problem.
Of course these things are difficult to enforce, but it sends a strong signal, and I think will be popular with parents currently battling this tsunami of addictive shit aimed at our children.
James Kilfedder won several elections in North Down for the UUP, then won in 1979 as an independent unionist, and then won in 1983 for the new UPUP. He kept winning as a UPUP candidate through to 1992. North Down later saw Lady Hermon win successively for the UUP and then successively as an independent. Most recently, Alex Easton lost in 2019 as the DUP candidate, but won this year as an independent.
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/sainsburys-national-insurance-grocer-supermarket-inflation-budget-costs-business-rates-b1192580.html
The FDP has been wrecking the government for many months with its opposition to suspending the debt brake, and Scholz should have forced the issue a year ago, but unfortunately he's just not a leader.
Last time we had this conversation, I gave the specific example where my council was spending £3 million* to make my journey to work slower, on a road that isn't dangerous. That's on one road about 12 miles long.
How many times over are they doing that all over the country?
That's just one specific example, but it's repeated endlessly. My town has a shiny new roundabout, again £3 million quid. It exists to provide access to a patch of land which the council wanted to put in the local plan for housing. There was massive local opposition, (the land in question is a popular open public space), in the end they backed down and put somewhere else in the local plan instead. But they built the roundabout anyway. So now we have a £3 million quid roundabout to no-where.
Note, both of these schemes are probably classed as CapEx, so can come out of Rachel's extra borrowing, to ensure we get to pay for them for year and years to come.
*Plus all the money spent preparing bids for the money from central government, getting planning permission from themselves etc. etc.
But the context is a discussion about Trump trying to force Ukraine into a ceasefire with no guarantees.
Trump is saying he wants the US to have zero skin in the game. If that is really the case, then he should therefore have no real say in what Ukraine and Europe decide between them.
I'd be interested in @williamglenn 's take on this.
Instead everybody thinks they broke their promises anyway, so might as well made the better of a range of bad decisions.
Many years ago I ran a small group of pharmacies, and I've been thinking idly and now and again about the NI rise.
I really don't believe that all the panic that the likes of Sainsbury's boss are demonstrating is justified. Sure it's a nuisance, but it's not crippling, surely.
I don't know what to make of Buttigieg's chances.
He has absolutely remarkable skills as a political communicator - see his attitude to going on Fox, and regularly destroying them in argument, while coming across as courteous at the same time.
But what's he going to do now ? Run for a governorship himself ?
Is there a possible Senate seat in 2026 ?
The most common factor, however, was the economy - specifically, inflation. "Out here, you pay $5 for a dozen eggs. It used to be $1, or even 99 cents," Mr Negron added
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cze3yr77j9wo
I would be surprised if a dozen eggs was 99c in 2020, but telling people stock market is at all time high and GDP is growing is a tricky sell when people are seeing massive food inflation.
Also remember, supermarkets, they run on very very thin margins and hyper-efficient supply chain. Its massive volume on tiny margin, because of sector wide competition.
Younger people in large numbers will transgress boundaries. That is what being young is all about for many (including, once upon a time, me). If you don't have fairly tight boundaries young people will find even more dangerous boundaries to cross.
What it amounts to is that Trump knows almost nothing about almost everything, and has to have it explained to him like a 13 year old boy child who has just come into a huge fortune. His ego has to be masturbated, and he focuses entirely on the style rather than the substance. It is all personal impact on him and his self-image. He will deal with something he does not like, or cannot understand without turning his brain on, by going for the messenger.
Janet & John would be too challenging.
This is Alistair Campbell talking to Anthony Scaramucci, who was on the Trump team, and is now an opponent. Scaramucci comes across to me as a normal USA administration cynical organisation man. About 15 minutes.
There's one anecdote how he explained the middle east to Trump by talking about the film "Lawrence of Arabia", which Trump saw as a child. Trump si handled liek a backward, disinterested King.
https://youtu.be/ci5NLT6ZiKc?t=4337
And previously 16 hours a week was the point at which employer NI (at £175 a week).
Now it kicks in after about 8 hours of work so suddenly supermarkets have a lot of workers earning wages were Employer NI needs to be paid..
Prices haven't subsequently gone down, though, so we're at a higher base than we were, while, AFAIK wages are now just about catching up. For some occupations.
Stop Press: Bank Rate is down by 0.25%
And this is the US where eating out is for many people something they used to do x times a week...
Michael J. Stern
CNN has a story titled “where the Harris campaign went wrong.”
Nope, I won’t read it.
Harris ran a great campaign.
The story should be titled “where the American people went wrong.”
1:20 PM · Nov 6, 2024
120k likes on that.
If the Democrats spend the next 4 years blaming voters as they seem to want to do now then it's all over.
Mrs U was in the US last month and came back going WTF at cost of eating out, even cheapo chains. Where as it used to be too cheap if anything. And the tipping on top. 20% minimum.
Taking your kids to McDonalds and it costing $50...that is proper shock.
Worth remember, what did Trump as a stunt, he read out the Cheesecake Factory Menu and the price increases. For those that don't know, The Cheesecake Factory is what lower and middle class Americans think as the place to go for a nice special occasion meal. Everybody knows that chain and it is very popular.
A salutatory lesson.
After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writers Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?
America used have really cheaply/mid restaurant food, relative to average income, for example.
See farmers and IHT, or well off pensioners spending £1000-2000 a year looking after their dogs who are suddenly going to starve this afternoon because they have lost £150 or £300 in heating bill benefit.
Sainsbury's claim the cost will be £140 million. Their turnover is £36 billion per annum.
So the extra cost is 0.38% of turnover. For a single hit that is unlikely to have much more on top, that does not seem to be an existential threat.
The fact that it creates a trap where working more than 16 hours has little effect on net income was foreseen and commented on at the time.
Trump at 4 could have been very profitable for those who were backing Trump on the other markets
For dinner I ended up with a small cauldron of perpetually boiling clams. Plus a bowl of hula hoops
I’ve had more satisfying suppers
"In the financial year ending March second in 2024, Sainsbury's recorded a profit of 277 million British pounds before tax and 137 million British pounds after tax."
In that context, £140 million is a lot of money.
The response by Sainsburys and other retailers, will be to put up prices and squeeze suppliers.
The 2028 election will also be very different. There will be 2 new candidates. The background will be entirely different. There’s a limit to what a campaign post mortem can tell the Democrats about what to do in 4 years time.
I don’t think the losing side need to work out what happened and why today. Let them lick their wounds. I’m certain they won’t spend the next 4 years blaming the voters. In practice, some time in 2025, they’ll be working out what their 2026 midterms strategy is. There’s no reason to presume one post on Twitter represents anything of note!
She's moving to London in March and staying with us for a few weeks while she gets her own place sorted out but she was saying one of the things she's looking forwards to most is not having to pay 25-30% tips.
Just checking for a friend who doesn't believe me.
A prissy, self-righteous sense of their own virtue and superiority is a characteristic of the modern left, but they sometimes win elections despite that. And don't forget in 2028 you're not going to have the ghastly but apparently weirdly charismatic figure of Trump running. Had the sniper been a slightly better shot in July I can't see Vance pulling off the victory Trump just did.