I think the democratic party needs to take a very hard look at what Labour did this year wrt identity politics and purity testing. They adopted a centre right position on both which allowed them to win the election. Had they gone all in on identity politics and had the mental positions the Dems had going into July I think the vote shares for Tory and Labour would probably have been about the same. Those million voters who stayed home and the million who reluctantly went to Labour would have showed up on the day for the Tories.
I'm a bit unsure about this.
I think a lot of the culture war/identity stuff is projection from the Right. I don't think Labour under Starmer have ever been particularly hot on it, and the Conservatives got frustrated when they simply refused to engage with their baiting.
I think under Starmer it has been noticeably toned down and hardly featured in the election campaign.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
The standard of financial journalism at the BBC is mediocre. They will probably just be recycling a press release.
This strikes me as a concern, although worth noting the Tories are broadly supportive. Who decides what to invest in and how ? The govt and local authorities have a pretty poor record in investing.
"Pension megafunds will be created as part of the biggest set of pension reforms in decades, unlocking billions of pounds of investment in exciting new businesses and infrastructure and local projects. "
What about risk ? What about fiduciary duty ? The govt may say this will deliver better returns but by the time we find out no one involved in this will be there to account for it. Neil Woodford on steroids as you say. If we invest in illiquid assets how can those funds be quickly realised if needed.
Alex Brummer in the Mail writing about this is saying "There will be a similar approach for the assets in smaller defined contribution plans."
I will ensure my DC when I leave this job is moved to my SIPP.
On private sector DC schemes I genuinely do not know what they are talking about and I'm pretty sure they don't either.
A SIPP is a DC plan. Just a homemade one. And higher risk usually because you have to decide where to invest. Charges may be less but not necessarily (will likely be higher if you use funds). Employer arranged DC scheme are often close to nil charges, even to leavers of that employer. They are rarely above 0.75% pa. Before you move an ex employer DC scheme to a SIPP check the charges and if you do move it be aware that you have to select the underlying investments yourself so there are issues over diversification and time-spent by you.
All (3) of my employer pensions are 1% or more.
Has anyone got an example where government forcing mergers in an industry, to reduce it to a few giants, has created a success?
Sure: by forcing the various British motor companies to merge into British Leyland created a very successful Japanese auto maker in the UK.
The downside to that being we don't know what would have happened if they had not done the mergers. Were the private companies capable of withstanding the changing market without a merger, or were they just doomed?
In the case of British shipbuilding, which I've looked into previously, it was pretty much doomed. The way the industry was going wrt ship sizes was too far away from what the government, local councils, unions and management could condone.
(There's a good piccie somewhere of the land take of an 'old' 1950s-style large shipyard versus a modern one. The old-style one is linear along the river, with slipways and docks for ships and houses behind. The modern one has much greater depth inland, where modules are constructed and taken out to the fewer slipways and docks.)
Dinosaurs Mating was the term for this - American, I think. A dying industry contracts by merger.
Ten years ago, I would have said the Boeing-McDonnell Douglas merger was a counterpoint to that.
Nowadays... it might be another supporting data point.
The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.
Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?
What the average Tory believes in isn't hated. Their failure to enact once elected what they 'believe in' is hated.
Maybe. But I would put in first place the incompetence and corruption. How do the Tories get over tthat with the present crew in charge?
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Recall, though, that wealthy conservatives essentially pay for Leon's day job. It would be odd indeed if he didn't have some sympathy for their choice.
2008 - Minimum wage full time: £11,918 2008 - Police Constable Pay Point 1: £22,104
2024 - Minimum wage full time: £23,795 2024 - Police Constable Pay Point 1: £29,907
That's fascinating. Especially the point about a shelf-stacker being exposed to student loan repayments, and therefore subject to a very high marginal tax rate.
2008 - Minimum wage full time: £11,918 2008 - Police Constable Pay Point 1: £22,104
2024 - Minimum wage full time: £23,795 2024 - Police Constable Pay Point 1: £29,907
The effects of this squeezing are going to be immense. Take an extreme example of a very hard working couple on 2025 minimum wage, both working their socks off at 48 hours a week - the normal maximum. The annual sum is 12.21x48x52x2=£60,952.
In parts of the country that counts as a lot of money. For a single earner, the top £10K of it would taxed at higher rate.
Fair play to the hard working less well paid - I admire them and there are plenty of them, working in often very boring but essential jobs, but it is not problem free.
(Checking, it's possible that by 2023 they weren't actually that far off. Google says "2023 - General practice staff delivered 356 million appointments, which is 14% more than in 2019.")
A large part of the reason the Conservatives have such high levels of unfavourability is that they have been in government for so long. The longer you are in government, the more people you piss off. Until you get turfed out of government and the other lot have their opportunity to gradually build up a well of people who resent them and memory of the lot in power fade. This isn't the whole story, but it's a large part of it.
The wild gyrations in policy had to be part of it too, though.
Johnson won with a big government, tax & spend, "turn the taps on" manifesto. Truss went for massive deficit spending, subsidies for industry, and open door immigration. Sunak was all about 'stop the boats', slashing capital projects, and banning tents and smoking.
People who would have been minded to support any one of those very different platforms will have been turned off by the others.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
No, PFI is the new PFI. It’s still an on-going thing.
The pensions thing is simultaneously sensible & worrying. DB Pension funds should be using their cash to buy real long term assets: They’re exactly the kind of institutions that have the kind of very long term time horizons where funding something like a reservoir (or whatever) in return for an income stream makes sense. Having them stuff themselves to the gills with the safest assets known to mankind & refuse to invest in the real economy is counterproductive over the long term.
The problem is exactly as you say: directing their investments into whatever the government of the day thinks is the new hotness (carbon capture being the most obvious boondoggle right now, but I’m sure there are others!) is just leaving the taxpayer on the hook for paying these pensions after these “investments” blow up in everyone‘s faces: We should remember the great “lets grow groundnuts in west Africa” scheme from the immediate post-war period as a warning to us all: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/ransomes-sims-and-jefferies-ltd/groundnut-film/
It really is going to depend on how the scheme is implemented & who gets to direct where the investment goes.
Local authorities have tested to destruction that they aren't skilled in investing.
Thurrock - solar farms Warrington - energy company Woking - town centre development - yay "growth"
All flavours of the day, all disasters.
Local authorities do not direct the investments of their pension schemes.
As they shouldn't, it would be a huge conflict of interest and result in the impoverishment of pension holders. Local councils are shit at investing.
Using pensioners' money to invest in government infrastructure projects sounds very dodgy to me.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
This has more than an element of never hating your enemies because it affects your judgement.
Henry Ford didn't invent the car or the production line either. He actually wasn't that great a CEO either and was certainly a piss-poor political interventionist. But he did spot an opportunity and exploited it ruthlessly - and to argue otherwise is pretty fatuous given Ford's dominance of the early motorcar market.
Likewise, Musk. I saw someone recently try to argue that actually Boeing might be more successful as an aeronautical / space firm because it spends more and has greater workforce diversity, and that these can be pointers to success. Which is fine if that's *all* the data you have to go on but it's not. The actual relevant data is that SpaceX mounts more than half of rocket launches globally and runs the world's biggest satellite network, has innovated in ways people thought impossible, has brought the costs of launches down by at least 80% and now has a technological lead over entire countries. Whereas Boeing builds planes that crash and fall apart in the air.
Leadership in industry, as in politics, is about vision as well as administration. It seems to me unlikely to the point of impossibility that someone else would have done what Musk did on SpaceX. Somebody probably would have done what he did at Tesla, sooner or later - but the crucial point is still that they didn't: he did it first.
As for X, that was never a commercial purchase: that was about buying political influence and insurance, not just in the US but globally - particularly when allied to SpaceX and Starlink.
And Ford and Musk have more in common, like antisemitism.
I think the democratic party needs to take a very hard look at what Labour did this year wrt identity politics and purity testing. They adopted a centre right position on both which allowed them to win the election. Had they gone all in on identity politics and had the mental positions the Dems had going into July I think the vote shares for Tory and Labour would probably have been about the same. Those million voters who stayed home and the million who reluctantly went to Labour would have showed up on the day for the Tories.
That process is already underway.
For example, there's a story going round (don't know if it's gospel, or just blame shifting) that Harris wanted to do the Rogan thing, but was talked out of it by staffers on the grounds it might alienate some of their interest groups.
Whatever the truth of such scuttlebutt, the debate about identity politics is all over the media.
Against that, it's impossible to deny the open misogyny of the current GOP. Which is its own form of identity politics.
My own view is that the debate is largely irrelevant in electoral terms, if they win the argument on stuff like the economy.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
The Conservative Party is hated. If you are a PB Tory the exercise shouldn't be to blame the voter, or the left, or the media, or any other factor than the person in the mirror.
Why is what I believe in so hated, and how do I change that?
What the average Tory believes in isn't hated. Their failure to enact once elected what they 'believe in' is hated.
Maybe. But I would put in first place the incompetence and corruption. How do the Tories get over tthat with the present crew in charge?
@RochdalePioneers claimed the conservatives are hated, but at the same time they won all four local elections in the North East of Scotland including the one he stood in !!!!!!
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
No, PFI is the new PFI. It’s still an on-going thing.
The pensions thing is simultaneously sensible & worrying. DB Pension funds should be using their cash to buy real long term assets: They’re exactly the kind of institutions that have the kind of very long term time horizons where funding something like a reservoir (or whatever) in return for an income stream makes sense. Having them stuff themselves to the gills with the safest assets known to mankind & refuse to invest in the real economy is counterproductive over the long term.
The problem is exactly as you say: directing their investments into whatever the government of the day thinks is the new hotness (carbon capture being the most obvious boondoggle right now, but I’m sure there are others!) is just leaving the taxpayer on the hook for paying these pensions after these “investments” blow up in everyone‘s faces: We should remember the great “lets grow groundnuts in west Africa” scheme from the immediate post-war period as a warning to us all: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/ransomes-sims-and-jefferies-ltd/groundnut-film/
It really is going to depend on how the scheme is implemented & who gets to direct where the investment goes.
Local authorities have tested to destruction that they aren't skilled in investing.
Thurrock - solar farms Warrington - energy company Woking - town centre development - yay "growth"
All flavours of the day, all disasters.
Local authorities do not direct the investments of their pension schemes.
As they shouldn't, it would be a huge conflict of interest and result in the impoverishment of pension holders. Local councils are shit at investing.
Using pensioners' money to invest in government infrastructure projects sounds very dodgy to me.
UK pension funds and insurance companies hold over £400bn in gilts so that ship has sailed.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
No, PFI is the new PFI. It’s still an on-going thing.
The pensions thing is simultaneously sensible & worrying. DB Pension funds should be using their cash to buy real long term assets: They’re exactly the kind of institutions that have the kind of very long term time horizons where funding something like a reservoir (or whatever) in return for an income stream makes sense. Having them stuff themselves to the gills with the safest assets known to mankind & refuse to invest in the real economy is counterproductive over the long term.
The problem is exactly as you say: directing their investments into whatever the government of the day thinks is the new hotness (carbon capture being the most obvious boondoggle right now, but I’m sure there are others!) is just leaving the taxpayer on the hook for paying these pensions after these “investments” blow up in everyone‘s faces: We should remember the great “lets grow groundnuts in west Africa” scheme from the immediate post-war period as a warning to us all: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/ransomes-sims-and-jefferies-ltd/groundnut-film/
It really is going to depend on how the scheme is implemented & who gets to direct where the investment goes.
Local authorities have tested to destruction that they aren't skilled in investing.
Thurrock - solar farms Warrington - energy company Woking - town centre development - yay "growth"
All flavours of the day, all disasters.
Local authorities do not direct the investments of their pension schemes.
As they shouldn't, it would be a huge conflict of interest and result in the impoverishment of pension holders. Local councils are shit at investing.
Using pensioners' money to invest in government infrastructure projects sounds very dodgy to me.
Build a railway and pay the pensions out of the ticket receipts. It looks easy enough.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
No, PFI is the new PFI. It’s still an on-going thing.
The pensions thing is simultaneously sensible & worrying. DB Pension funds should be using their cash to buy real long term assets: They’re exactly the kind of institutions that have the kind of very long term time horizons where funding something like a reservoir (or whatever) in return for an income stream makes sense. Having them stuff themselves to the gills with the safest assets known to mankind & refuse to invest in the real economy is counterproductive over the long term.
The problem is exactly as you say: directing their investments into whatever the government of the day thinks is the new hotness (carbon capture being the most obvious boondoggle right now, but I’m sure there are others!) is just leaving the taxpayer on the hook for paying these pensions after these “investments” blow up in everyone‘s faces: We should remember the great “lets grow groundnuts in west Africa” scheme from the immediate post-war period as a warning to us all: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/ransomes-sims-and-jefferies-ltd/groundnut-film/
It really is going to depend on how the scheme is implemented & who gets to direct where the investment goes.
Local authorities have tested to destruction that they aren't skilled in investing.
Thurrock - solar farms Warrington - energy company Woking - town centre development - yay "growth"
All flavours of the day, all disasters.
Local authorities do not direct the investments of their pension schemes.
As they shouldn't, it would be a huge conflict of interest and result in the impoverishment of pension holders. Local councils are shit at investing.
Using pensioners' money to invest in government infrastructure projects sounds very dodgy to me.
Build a railway and pay the pensions out of the ticket receipts. It looks easy enough.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
What's the difference between a proposed "land for security" deal for Ukraine in 2024, and the Budapest Memorandum "nuclear weapons for security" deal signed in 1994?
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
The important thing is to close the gap with Labour. If say, the Tories get to -20%, and Labour drop to -30%, the Tories win.
You don’t have to be liked. Just, less disliked than your main opponent.
The key word there is 'Your main opponent '. Your statement is true for 2 party politics and we might return there, but as we have seen from the last election there is a risk to the two main parties that isn't so with LDs Reform, Greens and Indies all performing.
Voters have already shown they will vote Indy instead of Labour and I am sure Reform and LDs will be a threat in many constituencies instead of the Conservatives.
As long as there's a quarter of the English electorate who will always vote Tory (even in 2024) and another solid quarter who will always vote Labour and another quarter who will always vote Labour (even in 1983) then the electoral system will always approximate a two-party system. Sure, the Tories could still collapse from here, but I won't believe it until I see it.
I agree, but that wasn't quite the point I was referencing, although related.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
I don’t see any exit polls that support that position. The election was much more about the economy and inflation. Even if the election was all about woke, there were plenty of anti-woke options in the Republican primary who weren’t Trump. The responsibility for Trump lies with Trump and those who support him.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Sorry for O/T but find it odd that the Today programme seem more focussed on Gaetz nomination when the one everyone outside the US (apart from Russia) should be worried about is Gabbard.
No doubt in a few days time when there is analysis and opinion elsewhere pointing this nightmare out then the Beeb will go hard on it as if they’ve just dug the appointment out without anyone else seeing it.
Both appointments are terrifying. There’s plenty of horror to go around. I suggest our focus should be on the appointments and not on criticising the BBC for being slightly overwhelmed by the awfulness of it all.
Putin must have some SERIOUS hold over Trump.
Both are appointments that cast democratic government in the worst possible light.
And Musky Baby as well. Who, it should be noted, had prominent Russian investors into Twix, and who apparently has talked to Putin and Putin's representatives.
The GOP are selling out American democracy to Russia.
Hugo Rifkind in The Times today has an article on the idea that tech bros are becoming at least as powerful as Nation states and we need to consider how we interact with them on that basis
It does raise the question though of what happens when Musk and Trump fall out. Is that civil war?
But Zuckerberg in 2020 was just fine!
It was not fine.
But it's also orders of magnitude less egregious than what Musky Baby and his techbro shit friends have done this time.
I share others’ views about the use of the nickname “Musky Baby.” It gives me a mental image of a prostitute calling him that whilst pegging him.
FTFY
In that case I could imagine him shouting.
“Musky, Musky Baby.”
“”What’s that?”
“It’s my safe word.”
“F*ck your safe word, you little bitch!”
Musk needs treating with utter contempt. If my using a phrase like 'Musky Baby' annoys you, remember that is exactly the intent: to take the piss out of a guy who is doing everything for himself, not you. If you are one of the weird nerds who defend his every action, ask yourself at what point you would stop supporting the narcissistic liar.
As ever (and this goes back to the days of people using "Bliar", it makes the user of the nickname look bad, not the target.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
Tesla was a failing company retro fitting Lotus Elise with a battery. The company it itself today is nothing like it. Its a bit like saying well Ray Kroc didn't start McDonald's and story of loads and loads of other companies.
Musk did start SpaceX.
You can also point to Musk original investment in OpenAI.
Its very different from Trump or Branson, where its basically all bramd deals.
Musk is also turning Grok into something very powerful very quickly such that he’s freaking out Sam Altman
I have said this before. I never believed the i'm buying twitter as i am a free speech supporter.
I think he saw a company that has always struggled to make money, thought he could hardball them into taking lower offer (which backfired). But it was really about the potential of the source of real time training data.
And pretty much straight away setup the xAI spin off and recently built 100k GPU cluster.
i half agree. I believe Musk is a genuine free speech absolutist (with some hypocritical aspects of course)
He wanted to buy Twitter for that reason, then balked at the price, but got aytpically fucked over and paid way more than it’s “worth”, at least at that point on paper
He then made several decisions that made this worse, eg the silly rebranding
HOWEVER like any really bright entrepreneur and innovator, he then foresaw the advantage where others saw nothing. He ruthlessly used TwiX to get Trump into the White House (thereby quadrupling his Twitter investment for a start and making his losses into fat profits) he got the hit on Woke he wants, and now - yes - he has endless data for Grok
This is the hallmark of very bright very successful people, they can turn the mistakes we all make into big opportunities, because they can think ahead, see opportunities and extrapolate
is he a thin skinned pillock? Yes. Is he a once-in-a-century genius? Also yes
People that deny the latter are just fools, who look foolish
The xAI spin off was setup pretty up immediately. As was the ability to scrap data via API being shut off. That suggests was part of the plan. Their first LLM was released after 12 months, given how long these things take to train, again must have moved fast.
As far as I can tell Grok is absolutely no-where in the LLM market - possibly it’s driving X/Twitter subscriptions though?
Given the demand for “quality” text to feed these things, Musk may have made some ready $ selling the Twitter archives to the other AI companies.
Meanwhile no one is making any money from AI right now: OpenAI is a hole in the ground into which money is being poured & it’s much the same for the rest of them. NVidia is making out like a bandit in the process though!
It might be a situation where being initial market leader isn't the best situation as while the technology still develops, at the moment the biggest models are very inefficient, if you are the go to product you get hit the hardest in terms of running costs.
I think that's becoming increasingly clear, yes - the likes of OpenAI don't seem to have been able to dig much of a moat, and so don't have any way to defend their lead. I suspect the basic LLMs will quickly be commoditised, with the real value being in the post-training layers.
You'd expect Twitter's firehose to be a good source of live RAG data, so Grok may be able to take advantage of that to end up as being the most up-to-date system. But there are thousands of startups working on application- and domain-specific fine-tuning, so I don't think it's possible to predict how the market will look in a year or two's time.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Gabbard is not stupid? Citation needed.
She has gone from a no-hoper Dem to a Rep in government.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
So its just luck that he is rich beyond imagination? You don't have to like someone to recognise that they have been very successful.
Luck is a huge amount of most successes, not that most people successful people like to acknowledge that.
For sure this is true, but I find it astonishing how many on PB (and presumably in the wider world) let their distaste for Musk lead then to diminish his achievements. I don't particularly like Novac Jokovic, but I don't try to pretend he has just been luck to win 23 Grand Slam tournaments.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
So its just luck that he is rich beyond imagination? You don't have to like someone to recognise that they have been very successful.
Luck is a huge amount of most successes, not that most people successful people like to acknowledge that.
For sure this is true, but I find it astonishing how many on PB (and presumably in the wider world) let their distaste for Musk lead then to diminish his achievements. I don't particularly like Novac Jokovic, but I don't try to pretend he has just been luck to win 23 Grand Slam tournaments.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Gabbard abstained on the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Do you have some example of how she’s done anything for the Uighurs?
Are LNG prices back to pre-invasion levels? I found one source that suggests this is so.
Is this because: (1) Demand has reduced. (2) Supply from non-Russian sources has increased. (3) Nothing much has changed except that the Russian gas is being bought in the global market by non-European countries.
Another unnoticed campaign success from Trump was shifting language on immigration back from "undocumented migrants" to "illegal immigrants". That alone shifted the overton window back to the right on illegal immigration and it's a lesson for Kemi (and Nige) because I've noticed Labour attempting to use "irregular migrants" rather than "illegal immigration" over the last year or so.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
I don’t see any exit polls that support that position. The election was much more about the economy and inflation. Even if the election was all about woke, there were plenty of anti-woke options in the Republican primary who weren’t Trump. The responsibility for Trump lies with Trump and those who support him.
OK... It was one issue of many. But it is misguided to deny it was a significant issue.
Everyone keeps going on about 'the Rogan podcast'. A large part of what Rogan goes on about is the extremes of identity politics, he eventually endorsed Trump. Now people are saying that Kamala's failure to do the Rogan podcast was a big factor.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Gabbard is not stupid? Citation needed.
She has gone from a no-hoper Dem to a Rep in government.
I guess the question is whether she ever again needs the soul she’s sold?
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
No, PFI is the new PFI. It’s still an on-going thing.
The pensions thing is simultaneously sensible & worrying. DB Pension funds should be using their cash to buy real long term assets: They’re exactly the kind of institutions that have the kind of very long term time horizons where funding something like a reservoir (or whatever) in return for an income stream makes sense. Having them stuff themselves to the gills with the safest assets known to mankind & refuse to invest in the real economy is counterproductive over the long term.
The problem is exactly as you say: directing their investments into whatever the government of the day thinks is the new hotness (carbon capture being the most obvious boondoggle right now, but I’m sure there are others!) is just leaving the taxpayer on the hook for paying these pensions after these “investments” blow up in everyone‘s faces: We should remember the great “lets grow groundnuts in west Africa” scheme from the immediate post-war period as a warning to us all: https://merl.reading.ac.uk/collections/ransomes-sims-and-jefferies-ltd/groundnut-film/
It really is going to depend on how the scheme is implemented & who gets to direct where the investment goes.
Local authorities have tested to destruction that they aren't skilled in investing.
Thurrock - solar farms Warrington - energy company Woking - town centre development - yay "growth"
All flavours of the day, all disasters.
Local authorities do not direct the investments of their pension schemes.
As they shouldn't, it would be a huge conflict of interest and result in the impoverishment of pension holders. Local councils are shit at investing.
Using pensioners' money to invest in government infrastructure projects sounds very dodgy to me.
UK pension funds and insurance companies hold over £400bn in gilts so that ship has sailed.
This proposal appears to be an attempt to shortcut this process, whilst hiding the the borrowing liabilities off the balance sheet. What could possibly go wrong.
It's going to be an epic scandal in about 15-20 years time, but doubtless all those concerned will long ago have left the scene.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
The standard of financial journalism at the BBC is mediocre. They will probably just be recycling a press release.
This strikes me as a concern, although worth noting the Tories are broadly supportive. Who decides what to invest in and how ? The govt and local authorities have a pretty poor record in investing.
"Pension megafunds will be created as part of the biggest set of pension reforms in decades, unlocking billions of pounds of investment in exciting new businesses and infrastructure and local projects. "
What about risk ? What about fiduciary duty ? The govt may say this will deliver better returns but by the time we find out no one involved in this will be there to account for it. Neil Woodford on steroids as you say. If we invest in illiquid assets how can those funds be quickly realised if needed.
Alex Brummer in the Mail writing about this is saying "There will be a similar approach for the assets in smaller defined contribution plans."
I will ensure my DC when I leave this job is moved to my SIPP.
On private sector DC schemes I genuinely do not know what they are talking about and I'm pretty sure they don't either.
A SIPP is a DC plan. Just a homemade one. And higher risk usually because you have to decide where to invest. Charges may be less but not necessarily (will likely be higher if you use funds). Employer arranged DC scheme are often close to nil charges, even to leavers of that employer. They are rarely above 0.75% pa. Before you move an ex employer DC scheme to a SIPP check the charges and if you do move it be aware that you have to select the underlying investments yourself so there are issues over diversification and time-spent by you.
All (3) of my employer pensions are 1% or more.
That's unusual. Old pension plans I'm guessing. There has been a trend towards lower charges, hastened by stakeholder plans then auto enrolment. Auto enrolment charges are capped at 0.75% but most are much lower. NEST is 0.3%.
Whether to move plans into the self-managed world of a SIPP needs careful consideration. Generally I'm in favour of a decision driven by charges, but this comes with the rider that you must understand investments well enough and have the time and inclination to manage a SIPP.
Some fall into the trap of moving to a SIPP and then using funds which have high charges, thus defeating the object. Individual company shares and ETFs are the way to go. ETFs have no stamp duty. You should diversify adequately. Higher yields make sense given the taxation of pension funds. Beware possible benefits you may lose from the old employer scheme (esp old ones) such as higher than 25% tax free cash entitlement and pension guarantees at retirement (you would lose such benefits if you transferred away).
My current one is 1% also. Drops to 0.6% with over £100k invested. My Vanguard stocks and shares isa is much cheaper, is invested in pretty similar stuff... SIPP seems much better to me. Maybe if I was closer to retirement I'd be more worried but I'm planning to switch to SIPP. I'm unconvinced these money managers know much more than me, and I don't know much at all!
Another unnoticed campaign success from Trump was shifting language on immigration back from "undocumented migrants" to "illegal immigrants". That alone shifted the overton window back to the right on illegal immigration and it's a lesson for Kemi (and Nige) because I've noticed Labour attempting to use "irregular migrants" rather than "illegal immigration" over the last year or so.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
This is the Trump who talked about “bad blood” and wants to deport legal immigrants?
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
I don’t see any exit polls that support that position. The election was much more about the economy and inflation. Even if the election was all about woke, there were plenty of anti-woke options in the Republican primary who weren’t Trump. The responsibility for Trump lies with Trump and those who support him.
OK... It was one issue of many. But it is misguided to deny it was a significant issue.
Everyone keeps going on about 'the Rogan podcast'. A large part of what Rogan goes on about is the extremes of identity politics, he eventually endorsed Trump. Now people are saying that Kamala's failure to do the Rogan podcast was a big factor.
Lots of people are going on about the Rogan podcast. That doesn’t mean they’re right. I am, as I may have said before, sceptical of most immediate post-election analysis. The exit polls highlight the economy, not “woke”.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Gabbard abstained on the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Do you have some example of how she’s done anything for the Uighurs?
Trump was very critical of China over the Uighurs last time around.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
In national nature reserves they should be banned simply because of the effect they have on ground-nesting birds, seals etc
(Checking, it's possible that by 2023 they weren't actually that far off. Google says "2023 - General practice staff delivered 356 million appointments, which is 14% more than in 2019.")
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
It is a word to describe the radical and intolerant progressivism seen over the last decade or so, but it is contested so best to put it in speech marks.
(Checking, it's possible that by 2023 they weren't actually that far off. Google says "2023 - General practice staff delivered 356 million appointments, which is 14% more than in 2019.")
Apps by phone are not appointments really.
I don't agree. I have had several phone appointments that have provided the outcome I needed (e.g. antibiotics prescribed etc). Its 2024 - we need to move beyond the model of physically attending a GP in his/her room. Sometimes you have to be there (physical examinations) but a lot can be done on the phone and I would like to see Zoom/Teams etc being more widely used.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Gabbard abstained on the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Do you have some example of how she’s done anything for the Uighurs?
Trump was very critical of China over the Uighurs last time around.
So a sex trafficker as Attorney General, someone who repeats Russian propaganda talking points as Director of National Intelligence, and a tariff policy that will crash the world economy, but on the upside Trump said some things 4 years ago that are similar to what the Biden administration has said since about the Uighurs. I mean, I hope you’re right on that point, but I’m not convinced.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
It is a word to describe the radical and intolerant progressivism seen over the last decade or so, but it is contested so best to put it in speech marks.
I wasn't objecting to the speech marks, its the bit after...
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
Another unnoticed campaign success from Trump was shifting language on immigration back from "undocumented migrants" to "illegal immigrants". That alone shifted the overton window back to the right on illegal immigration and it's a lesson for Kemi (and Nige) because I've noticed Labour attempting to use "irregular migrants" rather than "illegal immigration" over the last year or so.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
This is the Trump who talked about “bad blood” and wants to deport legal immigrants?
Wasn't it "poisoning the blood" - a close echo of language used by fascists?
What's the difference between a proposed "land for security" deal for Ukraine in 2024, and the Budapest Memorandum "nuclear weapons for security" deal signed in 1994?
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
One person of a particular heritage in a focus group feeling unsafe with the presence of dogs tells us literally nothing other than that particular person is afraid of dogs.
Any moron making (or even suggesting) policy on this basis should be permanently barred from public office.
Another unnoticed campaign success from Trump was shifting language on immigration back from "undocumented migrants" to "illegal immigrants". That alone shifted the overton window back to the right on illegal immigration and it's a lesson for Kemi (and Nige) because I've noticed Labour attempting to use "irregular migrants" rather than "illegal immigration" over the last year or so.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
This is the Trump who talked about “bad blood” and wants to deport legal immigrants?
Wasn't it "poisoning the blood" - a close echo of language used by fascists?
Accidental of course - we are told !
You’re right: I’m mixing up two examples of Trump’s rhetoric. So, at one 2024 rally he said, “And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” At another in late 2023, he said, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country”.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think there is a potential issue here but I don't think it has much to do with dogs much as I'd like to see them banned from lots of places. Nor do I think it has much to do with racism.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
One person of a particular heritage in a focus group feeling unsafe with the presence of dogs tells us literally nothing other than that particular person is afraid of dogs.
Any moron making (or even suggesting) policy on this basis should be permanently barred from public office.
In some inner city neighbourhoods it's not unusual to see Asian youths with snarling bulldogs straining at the leash. How does this fit in with the Climate Cymru BAME group narrative?
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT Candidate(s) Votes Percent JOSEPH R. BIDEN (D) 3,028,885 71.04% DONALD J. TRUMP (R) 1,145,530 26.87% JO JORGENSEN (L) 35,452 .83% HOWIE HAWKINS (G) 21,660 .51% ROQUE "ROCKY" DE LA FUENTE GUERRA (A) 15,999 .38% GLORIA LA RIVA (P) 15,917 .37%
(Checking, it's possible that by 2023 they weren't actually that far off. Google says "2023 - General practice staff delivered 356 million appointments, which is 14% more than in 2019.")
Apps by phone are not appointments really.
Doesn't it depend what they achieve? If it's say a repeat prescription thing, fine, it's done its job, it should count. However, if it results in a physical appointment, they can't count both or it's just double counting.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Gabbard abstained on the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Do you have some example of how she’s done anything for the Uighurs?
Trump was very critical of China over the Uighurs last time around.
So a sex trafficker as Attorney General, someone who repeats Russian propaganda talking points as Director of National Intelligence, and a tariff policy that will crash the world economy, but on the upside Trump said some things 4 years ago that are similar to what the Biden administration has said since about the Uighurs. I mean, I hope you’re right on that point, but I’m not convinced.
All I can really advise is that there is no point hating the situation, it is better to try and be constructive and positive about it, and adapt to it. The European countries need to be positive about Trump to get the right solution for Ukraine.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
Dog owners are on the whole much more responsible than they used to be 30 or 40 years ago.
There are still some a***holes around though - the same people who think fly-tipping and littering is fine. Of course those people will just ignore dog-free zones anyway.
There are already quite a few dog-free zones around here - mainly where children play, on beaches, or wildlife reserves. And that's fine.
However as a signed-up progressive, I think banning dogs because some cultures are dog averse is a 'woke' step way too far.
(Declared interest: we own a well-behaved pointer!)
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
Dog owners are on the whole much more responsible than they used to be 30 or 40 years ago.
There are still some a***holes around though - the same people who think fly-tipping and littering is fine. Of course those people will just ignore dog-free zones anyway.
There are already quite a few dog-free zones around here - mainly where children play, on beaches, or wildlife reserves. And that's fine.
However as a signed-up progressive, I think banning dogs because some cultures are dog averse is a 'woke' step way too far.
(Declared interest: we own a well-behaved pointer!)
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
That's because you don't live somewhere where XL Bullies (or the nearest legal equivalent) are much of a thing.
It is just one of the ways that poor areas become difficult places for normal people to live in through antisocial behaviour.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Gabbard abstained on the Uighur Forced Labor Prevention Act. Do you have some example of how she’s done anything for the Uighurs?
Trump was very critical of China over the Uighurs last time around.
So a sex trafficker as Attorney General, someone who repeats Russian propaganda talking points as Director of National Intelligence, and a tariff policy that will crash the world economy, but on the upside Trump said some things 4 years ago that are similar to what the Biden administration has said since about the Uighurs. I mean, I hope you’re right on that point, but I’m not convinced.
All I can really advise is that there is no point hating the situation, it is better to try and be constructive and positive about it, and adapt to it. The European countries need to be positive about Trump to get the right solution for Ukraine.
It seems odd you saying there’s no point hating the situation given how much you’ve hated prior situations!
European countries need to be realistic about Trump. Putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la while hoping Tulsi Gabbard won’t be a disaster for Ukraine is not being realistic.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
Dog owners are on the whole much more responsible than they used to be 30 or 40 years ago.
There are still some a***holes around though - the same people who think fly-tipping and littering is fine. Of course those people will just ignore dog-free zones anyway.
There are already quite a few dog-free zones around here - mainly where children play, on beaches, or wildlife reserves. And that's fine.
However as a signed-up progressive, I think banning dogs because some cultures are dog averse is a 'woke' step way too far.
(Declared interest: we own a well-behaved pointer!)
It is not going to happen anyway
It is the kind of thing where you wonder whether they are either
(a) That stupid (b) Want to start a row, maybe even a protest
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
Dog owners are on the whole much more responsible than they used to be 30 or 40 years ago.
There are still some a***holes around though - the same people who think fly-tipping and littering is fine. Of course those people will just ignore dog-free zones anyway.
There are already quite a few dog-free zones around here - mainly where children play, on beaches, or wildlife reserves. And that's fine.
However as a signed-up progressive, I think banning dogs because some cultures are dog averse is a 'woke' step way too far.
(Declared interest: we own a well-behaved pointer!)
It is not going to happen anyway
It is the kind of thing where you wonder whether they are either
(a) That stupid (b) Want to start a row, maybe even a protest
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think there is a potential issue here but I don't think it has much to do with dogs much as I'd like to see them banned from lots of places. Nor do I think it has much to do with racism.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
Nah, everyone knows you don't get real dragons until you are well north of Leeds.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
On a number of occasions I have heard dog owners / walkers cited as the most significant ASB problem on footpaths / rail trails.
Close control is a requirement in public places (I think a legal requirement) - and this issue is due to loss of control due to letting off lead in inappropriate places / extendy-leads which are incapable of controlling a dog. Comsequences are risks to people since dogs *do* bite and attack, and risks to livestock.
It's not dissimilar to other practices which are assumed to be OK, either due to lack of challenge over a long period, or because a right is assumed, and challenges are treated as illegitimate or offensive.
I'd include people riding cycles at inappropriate speed in pedestrian areas and people leaving their motor vehicles blocking visibility or crossings or pedestrian drop kerbs or pavements.
Responses to challenge should be "sorry, I won't do it again", but more often are a scale starting with "I'm not hurting anyone", then "can't you wait", "I need to", through to "fuck off, you prick" and "I'm going to punch your lights out" and actual violence.
I'm a little sceptical of the point raised by the Welsh bodies, but real cultural and physical barriers do exist, and need to be considered and potentially addressed. Often others may not be aware of the barrier, as a motorist may not consider the people they are forcing into the road whilst they are not there, or a dog owner may not be considering that some of the people they are exposing to their dog may have an experience of being attacked.
Here's an Ashley Neale 60s video about the dog leads one, with a dog on a type of lead that may as well mean it is off the lead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUokcl2S6Rk
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think there is a potential issue here but I don't think it has much to do with dogs much as I'd like to see them banned from lots of places. Nor do I think it has much to do with racism.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
I like the idea of more non-white people hiking, but it seems to be a hobby of people living in rural and the racial mix in the rural is different to those in the urban. I doubt that dogs will change this.
Another unnoticed campaign success from Trump was shifting language on immigration back from "undocumented migrants" to "illegal immigrants". That alone shifted the overton window back to the right on illegal immigration and it's a lesson for Kemi (and Nige) because I've noticed Labour attempting to use "irregular migrants" rather than "illegal immigration" over the last year or so.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
This is the Trump who talked about “bad blood” and wants to deport legal immigrants?
Wasn't it "poisoning the blood" - a close echo of language used by fascists?
Accidental of course - we are told !
You’re right: I’m mixing up two examples of Trump’s rhetoric. So, at one 2024 rally he said, “And we got a lot of bad genes in our country right now.” At another in late 2023, he said, “They’re poisoning the blood of our country”.
He says different things at different rallies? Bloody hell!
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
I think with all this, it is better to judge the administration on what actually happens. Gabbard is not stupid; she has just been saying heretical things like 'we may have provoked Putin by expanding NATO' and 'the current strategy in Ukraine is not working' - she won't follow the required lines to take.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
Agree. There is much to fear and the worst possibilities are enormously bad. NATO enfeebled, Middle East inflamed even more, Ukraine subdued, Baltic States invaded and worse, trade wars.
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
It may be a good time to remind people about the Uighurs, it is astonishing how this has been forgotten.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
So its just luck that he is rich beyond imagination? You don't have to like someone to recognise that they have been very successful.
It is surely not controversial to think that luck plays the biggest part in becoming a billionaire? To what extent is debatable but it would seem quite absurd to think it is mostly down to "brilliance" or "hard work". There are far more brilliant and hard working non billionaires.
To become a billionaire in one venture might be down to luck (albeit still luck allied to judgement, hard work, insight and acumen - which are always essential components unless it's pure patronage. and even then there will have to be reasons for patronage on that scale). But to put the building of three such ventures down to luck is absurd and flies in the face of both facts and statistics.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
This is as good a judgment as any on the Gaetz/Gabbard/etc nominations.
Trump has shown he understands a cardinal rule of strong man dominance: constantly force your allies to defend the indefensible & to make ever greater concessions they once would have considered beyond the pale. Each surrender paves the way for the next. Gaetz just an opening bid https://x.com/RonBrownstein/status/1856805322922545446
The suggestion that we should be "positive" about them is absurd. The Gabbard appointment shows that Europe (that includes us) is effectively on its own as far as Ukraine is concerned. We need to get out act together.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
Are you offering odds?
The optics of formally abandoning Five Eyes are so bad for the non-US members that they won't. Whatever Trump and Gabbard do, it'll probably roll on because of that. But it's likely to become functionally redundant all the same.
I haven't noticed any comments yet on Reeves's pension fund proposals. I don't know enough about it to judge whether the proposals are a good idea, but does the absence of withering criticism from the normal critics thus far indicate anything?
It's not getting the attention it deserves because it's so boring - I hope the Opposition is all over the detail of this.
From what I can make out I think Reeves thinks she has found gold in them there hills enabling her to spend more money.
This is about public sector pensions which are funded (Local Government and Teachers). These are massive funds. There are employer and employee contributions (mostly employer) but the retirees pensions are not dependant on funding levels or investment returns because despite the existence of a fund they are Defined Benefit schemes (pensions are a function of years of service and salary not the investment fund).
If the funds underperform or, worse, contain a bunch of unlisted ‘investments’ that fail completely then oh dear no matter, any fund shortfall is made up from the employer (i.e. general taxation years away a future government’s problem), the retirees still get the same so no one will notice.
So when Ed Miliband wants money for a start up to punt on with government funding – to reach some environmental target or whatever – then as if by magic there is a pot of money to access without recourse to normal taxation or borrowing or spending cut-backs elsewhere.
Unlisted investments (whether startups or not) are very high risk and is why Neil Woodford got in trouble and lost his reputation. Reeves wants to take such risks on steroids but without obvious consequence because future taxpayers will have to bail this out.
Meanwhile, a select few fund managers will make a mint. This isn’t a pensions shake-up for growth – this is nonsense, it is fiscal vandalism.
The article below is so full of inaccuracy, ignorance and word salad I don’t know where to start.
The standard of financial journalism at the BBC is mediocre. They will probably just be recycling a press release.
This strikes me as a concern, although worth noting the Tories are broadly supportive. Who decides what to invest in and how ? The govt and local authorities have a pretty poor record in investing.
"Pension megafunds will be created as part of the biggest set of pension reforms in decades, unlocking billions of pounds of investment in exciting new businesses and infrastructure and local projects. "
What about risk ? What about fiduciary duty ? The govt may say this will deliver better returns but by the time we find out no one involved in this will be there to account for it. Neil Woodford on steroids as you say. If we invest in illiquid assets how can those funds be quickly realised if needed.
Alex Brummer in the Mail writing about this is saying "There will be a similar approach for the assets in smaller defined contribution plans."
I will ensure my DC when I leave this job is moved to my SIPP.
On private sector DC schemes I genuinely do not know what they are talking about and I'm pretty sure they don't either.
A SIPP is a DC plan. Just a homemade one. And higher risk usually because you have to decide where to invest. Charges may be less but not necessarily (will likely be higher if you use funds). Employer arranged DC scheme are often close to nil charges, even to leavers of that employer. They are rarely above 0.75% pa. Before you move an ex employer DC scheme to a SIPP check the charges and if you do move it be aware that you have to select the underlying investments yourself so there are issues over diversification and time-spent by you.
All (3) of my employer pensions are 1% or more.
That's unusual. Old pension plans I'm guessing. There has been a trend towards lower charges, hastened by stakeholder plans then auto enrolment. Auto enrolment charges are capped at 0.75% but most are much lower. NEST is 0.3%.
Whether to move plans into the self-managed world of a SIPP needs careful consideration. Generally I'm in favour of a decision driven by charges, but this comes with the rider that you must understand investments well enough and have the time and inclination to manage a SIPP.
Some fall into the trap of moving to a SIPP and then using funds which have high charges, thus defeating the object. Individual company shares and ETFs are the way to go. ETFs have no stamp duty. You should diversify adequately. Higher yields make sense given the taxation of pension funds. Beware possible benefits you may lose from the old employer scheme (esp old ones) such as higher than 25% tax free cash entitlement and pension guarantees at retirement (you would lose such benefits if you transferred away).
My current one is 1% also. Drops to 0.6% with over £100k invested. My Vanguard stocks and shares isa is much cheaper, is invested in pretty similar stuff... SIPP seems much better to me. Maybe if I was closer to retirement I'd be more worried but I'm planning to switch to SIPP. I'm unconvinced these money managers know much more than me, and I don't know much at all!
Fund managers don't know much more than you - you are correct. Which is why charges comparison is your metric to use.
Your Sipp seems better to you because you are using Vanguard funds. For example their Vanguard UK fund VUKE charges a miniscule 0.09% pa and covers 100 shares. There are many other Vanguard funds which are international and with charges of just a bit more. Accepting that charges are the most important factor in performance (given that no one knows anything) it is pretty obvious that your Vanguard SIPP will outperform a 1% employer scheme, which is likely in an actively managed fund rather than a passive fund.
So you are not comparing apples with apples.
One scenario where active funds may outperform a passive is in a bear market. The reason for this, though, is technical. An active fund will hold more in cash (sometimes much more) versus a passive tracker (which is fully invested). When share prices are trending down the cash component holding its value will mean that the active fund 'performs' better purely because a lesser percentage of the fund is in risk investments in the first place.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
So its just luck that he is rich beyond imagination? You don't have to like someone to recognise that they have been very successful.
It is surely not controversial to think that luck plays the biggest part in becoming a billionaire? To what extent is debatable but it would seem quite absurd to think it is mostly down to "brilliance" or "hard work". There are far more brilliant and hard working non billionaires.
To become a billionaire in one venture might be down to luck (albeit still luck allied to judgement, hard work, insight and acumen - which are always essential components unless it's pure patronage. and even then there will have to be reasons for patronage on that scale). But to put the building of three such ventures down to luck is absurd and flies in the face of both facts and statistics.
Maybe we mean different things by luck. There are far more equally brilliant and hard working non billionaires than billionaires. So to end up in the billionaire category is luck. That does not deny you have to be good at something in the first place, just that being good doesn't normally equate to becoming a billionaire.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
How can a twat like you still be a thing? Denying that “woke” even exists?
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think there is a potential issue here but I don't think it has much to do with dogs much as I'd like to see them banned from lots of places. Nor do I think it has much to do with racism.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
I like the idea of more non-white people hiking, but it seems to be a hobby of people living in rural and the racial mix in the rural is different to those in the urban. I doubt that dogs will change this.
Cultural reactions to do have an impact, including to dogs.
Islam, for example, aiui defines dogs as unclean. I'm not too sure about other cultures - not one I've studied.
If you want a measure of how deep that one runs, consider the amount of work it is taking to impact the hesitancy of Muslim private hire drivers to take guide dogs. There have been Fatwahs by the UK Sharia Council that as working animals Guide Dogs are fine, but the best part of 2 decades later it is still an issue that needs much work.
If you want a parallel, consider different cultural attitudes to eating caught fish between UK traditions and Eastern European traditions.
Another one is where women believe in 'modest' dress, and single sex spaces for exercise. I once heard a fascinating radio show about an Orthodox Jewish netball team.
Traditional British culture has its own taboos, but we tend not to notice them.
You can't really go with "these people must change to follow my culture or eff-off", because this is 2024 not 1954.
There are various projects about addressing walking for ethnic groups - a few years ago one was running in the Lake District, for example.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
It is a word to describe the radical and intolerant progressivism seen over the last decade or so, but it is contested so best to put it in speech marks.
It is easy to gain an understanding of "woke" if you substitute "political correctness gone mad" in its place.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
Are you offering odds?
The optics of formally abandoning Five Eyes are so bad for the non-US members that they won't. Whatever Trump and Gabbard do, it'll probably roll on because of that. But it's likely to become functionally redundant all the same.
I'd expect internal impairment rather than dismantling, eg we can't share some categories of information as the President might sell it to all and sundry. There remains a possibility of a future US Government being sane.
We have some record of hoodwinking the Yanks, anyway.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
It is a word to describe the radical and intolerant progressivism seen over the last decade or so, but it is contested so best to put it in speech marks.
It is easy to gain an understanding of "woke" if you substitute "political correctness gone mad" in its place.
Before that it was known as "being consdierate of others".
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Not just selling out Ukraine. Selling out supposed US allies too. The UK and other governments would be mad to share secrets that she may have access to. It's very hard to see how the Five Eyes survives the next Trump administration.
Are you offering odds?
The optics of formally abandoning Five Eyes are so bad for the non-US members that they won't. Whatever Trump and Gabbard do, it'll probably roll on because of that. But it's likely to become functionally redundant all the same.
Could rebrand to Four Eyes, though that does have an unfortunate softy Walter vibe to it.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
It is a word to describe the radical and intolerant progressivism seen over the last decade or so, but it is contested so best to put it in speech marks.
It is easy to gain an understanding of "woke" if you substitute "political correctness gone mad" in its place.
It isn't really madness as such, madness is benign and excusable.
It is an obsession with rapid social change that seeks to escape doubt and criticism, which therefore goes unexamined and then results in perverse and dystopian outcomes. IE: anti-racism turning in to racism; gay rights turning in to the persecution of homosexuals; womens rights turning in to rights to abuse women, etc. child protection turning in to child abuse, freedom turning in to tyranny etc.
The same thing will now probably happen with the right , who speedwalk their own version of woke. I expect the first thing to go will be the commitment to 'free speech'.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Not good for the overall reputation of the doggie set.
But then most Brits don't believe in challenging the ASB of others, despite the Peelian Principles ("The police are the public and the public are the police"), so it becomes accepted.
I am coming to the reluctant conclusion that Trump winning was probably for the best, for the same reasons that @darkage adduces
I can see where that perspective comes from and yet there's a huge difference between what Trump may do in theory to just reset identity politics and all of the shit that comes with and the reality of Tulsi Gabbard being the director of nation security and selling Ukraine out to Putin.
Defeating "woke" — if such a thing truly even exists — by destroying the government of the world's most important democracy seems like quite a high price to pay in my opinion.
Had 'woke' not gone too far, this change would not have been necessary. The problem was it was getting more and more extreme, and the left was not moderating itself.
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
The phrase ""woke" - if such a thing truly exists" is a nonsense. Of course it exists. It just means different things to different people. To some its about courtesy and doing the right thing for people, for others its utter rubbish and driving people to distraction. I think, like a lot of things, how people think about stuff evolves. We see it in language use. Not that long ago we use the term "Third World". Then we have the Global South, now its the the Global Majority and so on. People sometimes fail to keep up with the current use and get castigated. Is it correct to say Coloured People or People of Colour (or neither)? Who publishes the list of approved phrases?
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
Luckily we have the police who are very interested in this sort of thing, supported by No.10. God forbid that you don't keep up with current usage.
Jason Groves @JasonGroves1 No 10 backs police to continue investigating 'Orwellian' non-crime hate incidents. PM's spokesman: 'It is important the police can capture data relating to non-crime hate incidents where it is proportionate and necessary to help prevent serious crimes which may later occur'
It's up to them decide what is proportionate and necessary and it looks very good in their statistics, to cover up what they are not investigating. Who knows when your currently acceptable comment may become a serious crime at a later date. Maybe the whole population should do online training modules. Be safe out there.
I think Musk is vastly overrated as a successful business person.
The only business he’s ran entirely himself is X which has from the perspective of a company, been a disaster.
Tesla - didn’t start and arguably stole it
Space X - didn’t start and doesn’t run it day to day
PayPal - got kicked out for being a loon and wanting to call it X
So its just luck that he is rich beyond imagination? You don't have to like someone to recognise that they have been very successful.
It is surely not controversial to think that luck plays the biggest part in becoming a billionaire? To what extent is debatable but it would seem quite absurd to think it is mostly down to "brilliance" or "hard work". There are far more brilliant and hard working non billionaires.
To become a billionaire in one venture might be down to luck (albeit still luck allied to judgement, hard work, insight and acumen - which are always essential components unless it's pure patronage. and even then there will have to be reasons for patronage on that scale). But to put the building of three such ventures down to luck is absurd and flies in the face of both facts and statistics.
I agree that Musk has substantial talents and that it's hard to put it down to luck.
However, invoking statistics has dangers of going a bit Roy Meadows - creating/developing any single so successful a company is rare; creating three vanishingly so, but Musk had certain advantages (luck) playing some part in enabling the first and, once one has made lots of money and learned how to develop a successful company, further successes are not independent events.
I think Musk is a talented arsehole with a side helping of luck, but there's not really a statistical argument against him just being an arsehole with lots of luck.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I think there is a potential issue here but I don't think it has much to do with dogs much as I'd like to see them banned from lots of places. Nor do I think it has much to do with racism.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
I like the idea of more non-white people hiking, but it seems to be a hobby of people living in rural and the racial mix in the rural is different to those in the urban. I doubt that dogs will change this.
Cultural reactions to do have an impact, including to dogs.
Islam, for example, aiui defines dogs as unclean. I'm not too sure about other cultures - not one I've studied.
If you want a measure of how deep that one runs, consider the amount of work it is taking to impact the hesitancy of Muslim private hire drivers to take guide dogs. There have been Fatwahs by the UK Sharia Council that as working animals Guide Dogs are fine, but the best part of 2 decades later it is still an issue that needs much work.
If you want a parallel, consider different cultural attitudes to eating caught fish between UK traditions and Eastern European traditions.
Another one is where women believe in 'modest' dress, and single sex spaces for exercise. I once heard a fascinating radio show about an Orthodox Jewish netball team.
Traditional British culture has its own taboos, but we tend not to notice them.
You can't really go with "these people must change to follow my culture or eff-off", because this is 2024 not 1954.
There are various projects about addressing walking for ethnic groups - a few years ago one was running in the Lake District, for example.
The Charedi community also regards dogs as unclean, and many will go out of their way to avoid coming into contact with one (crossing the street, or standing in a doorway to let it pass, etc). And, of course, Afro-Caribbeans historically tended to be wary of dogs but I don't think that's down to any sort of actual taboo as such.
I personally don't find dogs to be much of a problem in rural settings - it's more often urban parks and narrow paths where they're not kept under proper control. But I can definitely see how the "outdoors = dogs jumping up on you" association could be formed, so I don't think there's any harm in exploring ways to reassure people that the countryside isn't always like that.
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
I'd support that. I often feel unsafe around dogs, particularly after COVID. Our local mini-park is basically unusable for reading in peace or giving children somewhere safe to run about. That's a disaster in an area dominated by tenements and a lack of green space.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
It is utter nonsense.
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
On a number of occasions I have heard dog owners / walkers cited as the most significant ASB problem on footpaths / rail trails.
Close control is a requirement in public places (I think a legal requirement) - and this issue is due to loss of control due to letting off lead in inappropriate places / extendy-leads which are incapable of controlling a dog. Comsequences are risks to people since dogs *do* bite and attack, and risks to livestock.
It's not dissimilar to other practices which are assumed to be OK, either due to lack of challenge over a long period, or because a right is assumed, and challenges are treated as illegitimate or offensive.
I'd include people riding cycles at inappropriate speed in pedestrian areas and people leaving their motor vehicles blocking visibility or crossings or pedestrian drop kerbs or pavements.
Responses to challenge should be "sorry, I won't do it again", but more often are a scale starting with "I'm not hurting anyone", then "can't you wait", "I need to", through to "fuck off, you prick" and "I'm going to punch your lights out" and actual violence.
I'm a little sceptical of the point raised by the Welsh bodies, but real cultural and physical barriers do exist, and need to be considered and potentially addressed. Often others may not be aware of the barrier, as a motorist may not consider the people they are forcing into the road whilst they are not there, or a dog owner may not be considering that some of the people they are exposing to their dog may have an experience of being attacked.
Here's an Ashley Neale 60s video about the dog leads one, with a dog on a type of lead that may as well mean it is off the lead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUokcl2S6Rk
I'm disappointed by the video - I'd forgotten who Ashley Neale was and clicked through genuinely expecting some kind of B&W stiff-upper-lip public information video about keeping your dog on a suitable lead from the 1960s
Call to create Dog Free areas in Wales to tackle racism from lobbyists Climate Cymru BAME,
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
Is this going to delay the much needed reintroduction of the wolf?
One could argue that reintroduction of wolves might work wonders on dealing with dogs off leads - either through direct removal of the problem, for smaller dogs at least, or through encouragement of keeping dogs on leads
Comments
Nowadays... it might be another supporting data point.
It would be odd indeed if he didn't have some sympathy for their choice.
In parts of the country that counts as a lot of money. For a single earner, the top £10K of it would taxed at higher rate.
Fair play to the hard working less well paid - I admire them and there are plenty of them, working in often very boring but essential jobs, but it is not problem free.
At the GE, Labour promised 2 million extra GP appointments per annum.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cyxx1lq50nlo
This was Boris Johnson, 2019. 50 million more appointments:
https://cchq2019.webflow.io/our-plan
Did they deliver one million per week extra?
(Checking, it's possible that by 2023 they weren't actually that far off. Google says "2023 - General practice staff delivered 356 million appointments, which is 14% more than in 2019.")
Johnson won with a big government, tax & spend, "turn the taps on" manifesto. Truss went for massive deficit spending, subsidies for industry, and open door immigration. Sunak was all about 'stop the boats', slashing capital projects, and banning tents and smoking.
People who would have been minded to support any one of those very different platforms will have been turned off by the others.
For example, there's a story going round (don't know if it's gospel, or just blame shifting) that Harris wanted to do the Rogan thing, but was talked out of it by staffers on the grounds it might alienate some of their interest groups.
Whatever the truth of such scuttlebutt, the debate about identity politics is all over the media.
Against that, it's impossible to deny the open misogyny of the current GOP. Which is its own form of identity politics.
My own view is that the debate is largely irrelevant in electoral terms, if they win the argument on stuff like the economy.
Trump wants to disrupt the system not just be ordered around by it; these appointments are in line with that approach. Ultimately other countries need to adapt to it, and very fast.
https://x.com/ElectionMapsUK/status/1854853448119800043?t=upM7aVTU4m0qJqBIc9kJ-Q&s=19
All the up sides need to be promoted; for example that the USA's traditional enemies - mostly ours too - may be more fearful of a Trump regime than we are??
"Climate Cymru BAME group consists of around 20 members made up of students and professionals who haveinterest in environmental preservation and protection, who work with North Wales Africa Society (NWAS), Sub Sahara Advisory Board (SSAP) and the Northwest Wales Climate Action Group.
On the basis of reports provided to date, the Welsh Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to the outdoors created by 'exclusions and racism'
The Government has concluded that ethnic minorities face 'barriers' to outdoor areas created by 'exclusions and racism'.
A separate set of recommendations submitted by the NWAS also called for 'dog-free areas'.
It added that during one of its focus groups, 'one black African female stated that she feels unsafe with the presence of dogs'.
Others also kept 'seeing dog fouling on the floor', the report added.
Barriers to outdoor activities includes the perception that growing food in gardens or allotments is 'dominated by middle-aged white women'. "
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/other/wales-told-to-make-dog-free-areas-to-make-outdoors-less-racist/ar-AA1u2Oy7
Ultimately the voters delivered their verdict.... in the form of Donald Trump.
You'd expect Twitter's firehose to be a good source of live RAG data, so Grok may be able to take advantage of that to end up as being the most up-to-date system. But there are thousands of startups working on application- and domain-specific fine-tuning, so I don't think it's possible to predict how the market will look in a year or two's time.
Is this because:
(1) Demand has reduced.
(2) Supply from non-Russian sources has increased.
(3) Nothing much has changed except that the Russian gas is being bought in the global market by non-European countries.
Calling it what it actually is helped Trump win over black and Latino voters because it allowed Trump to cast himself as being against the "illegal" part of immigration rather than someone who wants a white America for white people. What I also found interesting during my YouTube watch the other day is that Trump supporters all seem to be very bought into this narrative as well. Legal migration good, illegal migration bad. If this is a legitimate switch in attitude then Trump will have done a huge service to the US and set the right on a path to move past race and skin colour. In being so anti-woke Trump has adopted a lot of the language of the old school left and brought along right wingers with him who I'll bet in 2016 were voting for Trump to "save white America".
Everyone keeps going on about 'the Rogan podcast'. A large part of what Rogan goes on about is the extremes of identity politics, he eventually endorsed Trump. Now people are saying that Kamala's failure to do the Rogan podcast was a big factor.
It's going to be an epic scandal in about 15-20 years time, but doubtless all those concerned will long ago have left the scene.
My Vanguard stocks and shares isa is much cheaper, is invested in pretty similar stuff... SIPP seems much better to me. Maybe if I was closer to retirement I'd be more worried but I'm planning to switch to SIPP. I'm unconvinced these money managers know much more than me, and I don't know much at all!
Indeed the Waterloo Hotel in Betws y Coed has a doggie dining room complete with tables and their own menus
Take pronouns. Many have no issue at all with putting their preferred pronoun in their email signature, yet for others its ridiculous.
I've just completed a Health and Wellbeing survey at work. For Gender the choices were Male, Female, Non-binary and Queer. This was new to me - what the hell is Queer as a gender?
Woke language moves on, just as business speak does. Its created by 'in-speak' - if you are speaking the right way then you fit in with the herd.
These are just normal people voicing concerns that many white people are probably too scared to bring up. Dog owners are noisy opponents.
In national nature reserves they should be banned simply because of the effect they have on ground-nesting birds, seals etc
We live adjoining a park and speak to all the many dog owners who go past our home to exercise them in the park and they are responsible and in 49 years living here there has not been one adverse incident re any dog
I should say we have never owned a dog ourselves
Accidental of course - we are told !
Any moron making (or even suggesting) policy on this basis should be permanently barred from public office.
You don't normally see a very diverse crowd out walking. This has changed a little in recent years and there are particular hotspots (eg Dovedale, oddly) but generally the outdoors are very pale.
I think this is a little sad in the same way that I think it is a little sad that a lot of people never seem to leave the South and have this idea that there are Dragons everywhere north of Luton.
It seems to be a matter of culture more than anything. Should that be something we want to change, or should it not?
PRESIDENT AND VICE PRESIDENT
Candidate(s) Votes Percent
JOSEPH R. BIDEN (D) 3,028,885 71.04%
DONALD J. TRUMP (R) 1,145,530 26.87%
JO JORGENSEN (L) 35,452 .83%
HOWIE HAWKINS (G) 21,660 .51%
ROQUE "ROCKY" DE LA FUENTE GUERRA (A) 15,999 .38%
GLORIA LA RIVA (P) 15,917 .37%
LA so far this time
Harris 2,361,695 65
Trump 1,153,907 31.8
RFK 44,781
Stein 39,848
Oliver 12,582
There are still some a***holes around though - the same people who think fly-tipping and littering is fine. Of course those people will just ignore dog-free zones anyway.
There are already quite a few dog-free zones around here - mainly where children play, on beaches, or wildlife reserves. And that's fine.
However as a signed-up progressive, I think banning dogs because some cultures are dog averse is a 'woke' step way too far.
(Declared interest: we own a well-behaved pointer!)
It is just one of the ways that poor areas become difficult places for normal people to live in through antisocial behaviour.
The park or local open space becomes unsafe.
European countries need to be realistic about Trump. Putting your fingers in your ears and going la-la-la-la while hoping Tulsi Gabbard won’t be a disaster for Ukraine is not being realistic.
(a) That stupid
(b) Want to start a row, maybe even a protest
Close control is a requirement in public places (I think a legal requirement) - and this issue is due to loss of control due to letting off lead in inappropriate places / extendy-leads which are incapable of controlling a dog. Comsequences are risks to people since dogs *do* bite and attack, and risks to livestock.
It's not dissimilar to other practices which are assumed to be OK, either due to lack of challenge over a long period, or because a right is assumed, and challenges are treated as illegitimate or offensive.
I'd include people riding cycles at inappropriate speed in pedestrian areas and people leaving their motor vehicles blocking visibility or crossings or pedestrian drop kerbs or pavements.
Responses to challenge should be "sorry, I won't do it again", but more often are a scale starting with "I'm not hurting anyone", then "can't you wait", "I need to", through to "fuck off, you prick" and "I'm going to punch your lights out" and actual violence.
I'm a little sceptical of the point raised by the Welsh bodies, but real cultural and physical barriers do exist, and need to be considered and potentially addressed. Often others may not be aware of the barrier, as a motorist may not consider the people they are forcing into the road whilst they are not there, or a dog owner may not be considering that some of the people they are exposing to their dog may have an experience of being attacked.
Here's an Ashley Neale 60s video about the dog leads one, with a dog on a type of lead that may as well mean it is off the lead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUokcl2S6Rk
Trump has shown he understands a cardinal rule of strong man dominance: constantly force your allies to defend the indefensible & to make ever greater concessions they once would have considered beyond the pale. Each surrender paves the way for the next. Gaetz just an opening bid
https://x.com/RonBrownstein/status/1856805322922545446
The suggestion that we should be "positive" about them is absurd. The Gabbard appointment shows that Europe (that includes us) is effectively on its own as far as Ukraine is concerned.
We need to get out act together.
Your Sipp seems better to you because you are using Vanguard funds. For example their Vanguard UK fund VUKE charges a miniscule 0.09% pa and covers 100 shares. There are many other Vanguard funds which are international and with charges of just a bit more. Accepting that charges are the most important factor in performance (given that no one knows anything) it is pretty obvious that your Vanguard SIPP will outperform a 1% employer scheme, which is likely in an actively managed fund rather than a passive fund.
So you are not comparing apples with apples.
One scenario where active funds may outperform a passive is in a bear market. The reason for this, though, is technical. An active fund will hold more in cash (sometimes much more) versus a passive tracker (which is fully invested). When share prices are trending down the cash component holding its value will mean that the active fund 'performs' better purely because a lesser percentage of the fund is in risk investments in the first place.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2024/nov/14/donald-trump-matt-gaetz-republicans-democrats-us-politics-election-latest-news
I bet they confirm him anyway.
Grow up
Islam, for example, aiui defines dogs as unclean. I'm not too sure about other cultures - not one I've studied.
If you want a measure of how deep that one runs, consider the amount of work it is taking to impact the hesitancy of Muslim private hire drivers to take guide dogs. There have been Fatwahs by the UK Sharia Council that as working animals Guide Dogs are fine, but the best part of 2 decades later it is still an issue that needs much work.
If you want a parallel, consider different cultural attitudes to eating caught fish between UK traditions and Eastern European traditions.
Another one is where women believe in 'modest' dress, and single sex spaces for exercise. I once heard a fascinating radio show about an Orthodox Jewish netball team.
Traditional British culture has its own taboos, but we tend not to notice them.
You can't really go with "these people must change to follow my culture or eff-off", because this is 2024 not 1954.
There are various projects about addressing walking for ethnic groups - a few years ago one was running in the Lake District, for example.
We have some record of hoodwinking the Yanks, anyway.
It is an obsession with rapid social change that seeks to escape doubt and criticism, which therefore goes unexamined and then results in perverse and dystopian outcomes.
IE: anti-racism turning in to racism; gay rights turning in to the persecution of homosexuals; womens rights turning in to rights to abuse women, etc. child protection turning in to child abuse, freedom turning in to tyranny etc.
The same thing will now probably happen with the right , who speedwalk their own version of woke. I expect the first thing to go will be the commitment to 'free speech'.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2024/jan/08/plastic-bags-swinging-from-branches-how-britains-dog-waste-nightmare-grew-even-worse
Not good for the overall reputation of the doggie set.
But then most Brits don't believe in challenging the ASB of others, despite the Peelian Principles ("The police are the public and the public are the police"), so it becomes accepted.
Jason Groves
@JasonGroves1
No 10 backs police to continue investigating 'Orwellian' non-crime hate incidents. PM's spokesman: 'It is important the police can capture data relating to non-crime hate incidents where it is proportionate and necessary to help prevent serious crimes which may later occur'
It's up to them decide what is proportionate and necessary and it looks very good in their statistics, to cover up what they are not investigating. Who knows when your currently acceptable comment may become a serious crime at a later date. Maybe the whole population should do online training modules. Be safe out there.
However, invoking statistics has dangers of going a bit Roy Meadows - creating/developing any single so successful a company is rare; creating three vanishingly so, but Musk had certain advantages (luck) playing some part in enabling the first and, once one has made lots of money and learned how to develop a successful company, further successes are not independent events.
I think Musk is a talented arsehole with a side helping of luck, but there's not really a statistical argument against him just being an arsehole with lots of luck.
I personally don't find dogs to be much of a problem in rural settings - it's more often urban parks and narrow paths where they're not kept under proper control. But I can definitely see how the "outdoors = dogs jumping up on you" association could be formed, so I don't think there's any harm in exploring ways to reassure people that the countryside isn't always like that.
https://x.com/elonmusk/status/1857048689937723895
John Bolton, who is a staggeringly dumb warmonger, being against someone is a great sign!
Gaetz will be great.