No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.
Marks and Sparks cafe is really decent. Always has a good selection of food and its cheeses scones are nice.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
When I was investigating in my pension I left it to my pension advisers to do it and they did an excellent job over 40 years
Problem is for many with workplace DC pots they just let the pension company put them onto the lifestyle fund, or whatever shite they call it and they take their chances with it. May work for some but not for all and there have been people lose out because of it.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
Have you never opened something and nibbled it in the checkout queue?
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
Have you never opened something and nibbled it in the checkout queue?
Sometimes see some tracksuited mummy giving their little Tiffany or Tyler-Kade something to munch on from the shop while going round doing the shopping usually to present the empty wrapper at checkout. "Sorry sis, little un was ungry, innit"
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.
The substance is correct though
A Leon post? I doubt it.
Reeves has intimated the 3rd Heathrow runway plus relaxation of non doms at Davos today
Reform is leading in the polls, and Nigel Farage is favourite to be next PM. Labour have dozens and dozens of vulnerable seats. Starmer has very little political room for manoeuvre with the EU.
If they're paying attention they might not want to invest too much in a CU/SM lite deal that'll be comprehensively picked apart again in less than 4 years by someone who makes Boris look like Ted Heath in comparison.
If the EU are paying attention, they should lay Farage for next PM!
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
The worst of all possible worlds is to say/do something totally out of place like 'Double verification for online knife delivery will be introduced in new tough legislation'. This was the utterly unsuitable Yvette Cooper response.
True. It's hard to do nothing though. You get no credit for it.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
Fine words. Are you following through with this action?
I have an appointment with my financial adviser booked, although my pension is through my employer. My pension scheme is heavily invested in Heathrow and Thames Water, so…
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
Have you never opened something and nibbled it in the checkout queue?
Actually no, but then we have a weekly delivery so do not spend much time in store and always use self check outs
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
When I was investigating in my pension I left it to my pension advisers to do it and they did an excellent job over 40 years
Problem is for many with workplace DC pots they just let the pension company put them onto the lifestyle fund, or whatever shite they call it and they take their chances with it. May work for some but not for all and there have been people lose out because of it.
Are those funds overweight UK ?
I wouldn't know. Many different funds many different fund providers. My workplace pension isn't. But I choose the funds personally and when I leave next month I will wait for the final payment to go in then move it to my HL SIPP.
However I was minded of several stories recently in the press in a similar vein to these.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
Fine words. Are you following through with this action?
I have an appointment with my financial adviser booked, although my pension is through my employer. My pension scheme is heavily invested in Heathrow and Thames Water, so…
Universities scheme, USS, is heavily invested in Thames Water.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
No you don't really want climate pontificating on the GMB weather bulletin.
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
The worst of all possible worlds is to say/do something totally out of place like 'Double verification for online knife delivery will be introduced in new tough legislation'. This was the utterly unsuitable Yvette Cooper response.
True. It's hard to do nothing though. You get no credit for it.
Yet doing nothing is better than doing something stupid.
Just announce a review and kick it into the long grass while trying to come up with something effective that addresses the institutional failings here.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
No you don't really want climate pontificating on the GMB weather bulletin.
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
The politics segment is obsessed with Trump currently. I'd just listen to Spotify but my wife likes Richard Madeley and Ed Balls.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
The point is more that, in some cases, there is no lesson to be learned in that we are already doing as much as can reasonably be done, in a free society, to prevent such events. I'm thinking here of attacks by psychos rather than Grenfell, btw.
In the case of attacks by psychos, we are *not* doing all we could be doing, in terms of psychiatric care availability.
To delve into this difficulty a bit is to dip into deep waters. The psychiatry world has diagnosable diseases, generally treatable, and a large class of untreatable conditions which people label as 'psychopathic' 'sociopathic' 'narcissist', 'borderline personality disorder', 'evil' and so on.
In our society you can lock people up for two big reasons: they have committed a crime, or they are sectionable under mental health legislation. For this you have to be crazy in a way psychiatry recognises. The untreatable stuff fills our prisons and forms a large nuisance class in many communities.
In normal language our prisons are full of people who are mad, as well as being bad. The overlap is gigantic.
If you have a child who is going a bit loopy, there is CAMS etc. But if the child isn't actually a danger to themselves or others *right* now, the waiting list is forever.
I know of people who registered their child as diagnosed with ADHD at 15 - and not received any help by the time the child is 18....
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
As expected, Axel Rudakubana got around a two way ID check, for his knife. Not sure what else Starmer expects. Just posturing.
Matt Dathan @matt_dathan Excl: The Amazon driver who delivered the lethal knife to the 17 year-old Southport attacker handed the package to an adult at his home address, believed to be his mother or father.
Amazon has two-stage age verification for knife sales.
It's understood that he used software to circumvent the first stage, which uses Experian to check his name, date of birth and address.
Called it - that is the gap in the current system. The drivers are under pressure to get the package delivered, rather than deliver to a specific person. They will accept anyone answering the door to take packages.
EDIT: As a further issue, a non-trivial number of young people have falsely set birth dates on online systems. For example, the number of kids who have set their birthdate to be over 18 for their Apple ID....
Specifically, Amazon AVD doesn't require delivery to the named person, just any adult. It's not the drivers choosing to deliver to any adult - or the DSPs allowing their drivers to - it is the Amazon system.
The whole discussion is ludicrous displacement activity. Anyone over the age of about 3 is able to find fatal implements in any house. Knife. Hammer. Screwdriver. Breakable glass. Any blunt instrument.
So the real, and avoided discussion is this: To what extent and in what circumstances should we lock away in a secure place, or otherwise restrain, people who by their other behaviour pose a serious risk to others, but have not committed a serious crime, and do not suffer from anything that is at the moment a diagnosable mental disease under which it is lawful to section them.
Or, in Sun language, should we have the power to lock up/restrain psychos on the off chance?
Yes, it's a tough problem. Whisper it, but the fact may be that, in a free society, you just have to simply accept that very occasionally innocent people will suffer and die. Not every problem can be solved. Not that a politician could ever say this.
I'm a fan of this mindset. One way to stop the much mocked "lessons will be learnt" mantra is to stop saying it.
"Lessons will be learnt" = No lessons will actually be learned. No one in authority will be required to take responsibility. A similar disaster will happen in the medium distant future.
Exactly. Shit happened. Shit happens. Shit will happen. We move on.
However culprits must be caught and punished. We have laws against crimes. Let's enforce them.
By what if the culprits are Proper People? What about their Divine Right(s)?
Being a top bod is not a defence against criminal prosecution in my book. It undermines the law if the rich and powerful are exempt from it.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over less than 10 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
I am sure if she used those words it would lead all the media !!
Yes. So I'm doubting what Leon is saying. I think he's talking nonsense yet again.
The substance is correct though
A Leon post? I doubt it.
Reeves has intimated the 3rd Heathrow runway plus relaxation of non doms at Davos today
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
He stabbed one of the girls 122 times.
Terrorism is simply deathly violence in pursuit of a political motive. It’s unrelated to how many times someone is stabbed, or whether a killer takes a taxi or not.
The failure was not to sufficiently recognise Rudakubana as a terrorist, but rather to sufficiently recognise him as bent on homicidal intent.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
No you don't really want climate pontificating on the GMB weather bulletin.
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
The politics segment is obsessed with Trump currently. I'd just listen to Spotify but my wife likes Richard Madeley and Ed Balls.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
And white women and girls to boot.
Given his obsession with ethnic cleansing and genocide, you might be right about race possibly being a factor too.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Yes, this is what I've been thinking. Actually, all this stuff was part of their original pitch. And then they got in and had six months of madness for no readily apparent reason during which absolutely every decision they made was wrong and ludicrous and baffling (I exaggerate, but only slightly). And now they're being forced to compromise with reality. Perhaps it will turn out that they do do the things that need doing. Perhaps it will turn out that they're actually moderately competent at it.
Put it another way, you both over-reacted and totally wrote off Labour based on scant data.
They have made SOME bad early decisions, but that doesn't determine what comes next.
Worth noting that Labour descended from Peak Transactivism prior to the election: probably because it's a potential serious vote loser.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
No you don't really want climate pontificating on the GMB weather bulletin.
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
The politics segment is obsessed with Trump currently. I'd just listen to Spotify but my wife likes Richard Madeley and Ed Balls.
Oh. Perhaps some counselling?
Good idea. Although Weller is a twat he knocks out a good tune.
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.
Marks and Sparks cafe is really decent. Always has a good selection of food and its cheeses scones are nice.
The cafe at my local Morrisons is always busy. One reason is they offer kids-meal free if with an adult.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
No doubt Reeves will be blamed even though at least some of these jobs are, it seems, at the in-shop cafes which are just not used enough (according to Telegraph blog).
It always amazes me why anyone would want to eat in a supermarket
We used to grab lunch with the kids at the Sainsburys Cafe. It was a nice treat for the kids, the food was relatively nutritious and inexpensive, and we could combine it with the weekly shop so it was convenient too. I was sad when they changed it to a Starbucks.
Marks and Sparks cafe is really decent. Always has a good selection of food and its cheeses scones are nice.
The cafe at my local Morrisons is always busy. One reason is they offer kids-meal free if with an adult.
A few of the Supermarkets are very good like that, especially during the summer holidays. There's usually a list on the local facebook groups of them and what they offer.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
And white women and girls to boot.
Given his obsession with ethnic cleansing and genocide, you might be right about race possibly being a factor too.
I mean this with sincerity, what difference does the terrorism label actually make? He is never going to be released from prison regardless. And rightly so.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Yes, this is what I've been thinking. Actually, all this stuff was part of their original pitch. And then they got in and had six months of madness for no readily apparent reason during which absolutely every decision they made was wrong and ludicrous and baffling (I exaggerate, but only slightly). And now they're being forced to compromise with reality. Perhaps it will turn out that they do do the things that need doing. Perhaps it will turn out that they're actually moderately competent at it.
Put it another way, you both over-reacted and totally wrote off Labour based on scant data.
They have made SOME bad early decisions, but that doesn't determine what comes next.
Worth noting that Labour descended from Peak Transactivism prior to the election: probably because it's a potential serious vote loser.
Labour began rowing back from
Sorry, I think we lost you there - did you go into a tunnel? Interested to hear where that was going.
Well I'd say six months of consistent bad decisions isn't 'scant'. But if they are rowing back to the real world, good. They've still got four and a half years to go.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
Have we done this?
"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"
"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".
Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.
Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.
Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.
At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.
The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?
I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.
My personal view is that small scale reactors will have the same issues as large scale ones (hello NuScale !).
While solar panel costs continue to fall , nuclear costs only ever go one way - and then some, regardless of size or technology.
We might as well bite the bullet and spunk £20 billion on some massive inter-connectors & storage from Morocco.
On that subject, Prysmian have cancelled their proposed cable factory in the US which was due to supply the offshore wind industry. Perhaps if we are quick we might get it instead.
Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.
Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.
Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.
At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.
The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?
I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.
Objecting to runway 3 at Heathrow and airport expansion, stopping the mine in Cumbria, stopping new oil and gas in the North sea is hardly the act of a man embracing opportunities for growth.
I am all in favour of renewables but for the foreseeable future we will need oil and gas and we will also need oil for the other by products that come from it.
I think it's important to seperate oil and gas.
Gas: New licences would have an immaterial impact on North Sea production, which will fall precipitously over the next 10 years regardless of your policy. We will continue to import a very large proportion from friendly countries like Norway.
Oil: The inverse. New licenses would have a material impact on the amount extracted (though it will still fall off like gas) , but the UK has roughly balanced imports/exports (£30 billion each way).
I think we could have an interesting debate about oil, particularly given it's non-energy uses. But gas is a fantasy, and therefore electricity generation and heating is going to have to be primarily renewables/heat pumps.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
Which wouldn't be mutually exclusive from terrorism. But like Gallowgate I think the precise label for it is a deeply secondary matter. It's horrible beyond words. And so soon after the last such one too.
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
Very many moons ago, when I'd pop down from Uni to visit friends in north London I'd ask "what's X up to these days?" Awkward pause, "Oh, they moved south of the river" as if the waters had closed over their heads as they did so....
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
That doesn't make it terrorism, which needs some kind of political or ideological angle - essentially you need to be able to say "he's trying to make the government do [blank]". I don't see what fills the blank here.
Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.
Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.
Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.
At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.
The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?
I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.
Objecting to runway 3 at Heathrow and airport expansion, stopping the mine in Cumbria, stopping new oil and gas in the North sea is hardly the act of a man embracing opportunities for growth.
I am all in favour of renewables but for the foreseeable future we will need oil and gas and we will also need oil for the other by products that come from it.
I think it's important to seperate oil and gas.
Gas: New licences would have an immaterial impact on North Sea production, which will fall precipitously over the next 10 years regardless of your policy. We will continue to import a very large proportion from friendly countries like Norway.
Oil: The inverse. New licenses would have a material impact on the amount extracted (though it will still fall off like gas) , but the UK has roughly balanced imports/exports (£30 billion each way).
I think we could have an interesting debate about oil, particularly given it's non-energy uses. But gas is a fantasy, and therefore electricity generation and heating is going to have to be primarily renewables/heat pumps.
I don’t find you remotely credible on this issue.
If the north sea is going to run out of oil and gas then private firms will move away from extraction ex gov't intervention anyway.
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
Rachel Reeves has said "fuck net zero"? I'm surprised that isn't leading the news.
So am I, the news is obsessed with the issue. It's a reality but tedious to continually hear about it. Even the weather girl on GMB bangs on about it when all I want to hear about is what the weather is going to be.
No you don't really want climate pontificating on the GMB weather bulletin.
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
The politics segment is obsessed with Trump currently. I'd just listen to Spotify but my wife likes Richard Madeley and Ed Balls.
Oh. Perhaps some counselling?
Good idea. Although Weller is a twat he knocks out a good tune.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
Have we done this?
"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"
"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
Couzens also hated women.
Still managed to marry one (not an incel, I mean). But fine if you want to call him a terrorist too.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
A hate crime rather than terrorism, I'd have thought.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
Will he be in prison or some kind of secure unit ?
His life expectancy is prison would be very short.
I see Sara Sharif's father has already had some prison justice meted out. I expect it is only a matter of time,
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
Fine words. Are you following through with this action?
I have an appointment with my financial adviser booked, although my pension is through my employer. My pension scheme is heavily invested in Heathrow and Thames Water, so…
Universities scheme, USS, is heavily invested in Thames Water.
Bonds on the USS books are supposed to be valued at either current market value (if tradable) or based on a DCA analysis of the company in question if not. Either way they will have written off these credit instruments at this point. Anything they get back is gravy.
If they bought shares then those will be valued at current market value - i.e. sod all.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
Have we done this?
"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"
"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".
Reeves wants a third runway at Heathrow and Kemi needs to support this 100%
It is exactly what should be at the forefront of any growth agenda
Mind you, Khan and Burnham with others will be furious but the interesting one is Starmer who has opposed this as well, but with Starmer he will just change his position once again which would be no surprise
Gatwick can be expanded to the same extent for an estimated £2b - 10% of the cost of a third runway at Heathrow and far quicker. That is why airlines are opposed to a third runway at Heathrow. And they aren't Nimbys.
It is argued that Gatwick isn't a hub airport but the strong trend is to point to point. A third runway at Heathrow wouldn't be operational until the mid 2030s.
I think there is a knee jerk anti London reaction in some places.
I don't, I have seen some comments asking what is there for the North but that is hardly being anti London.
Some MP's are in favour of Heathrow 3, Like Cat McKinnell in Newcastle, as they see it as helping growth in the regions.
My sister-in-law lives in Newcastle but often has to travel to London for meetings.
The BA domestic and short-haul operation is the first to get binned in poor weather, which has a knock-on effect on the rest of the operation, connecting flights etc.
With the third runway more cities would become daily commutable to London, and there would be many more connection opportunities to regional airports especially at the margins. Places like Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Cardiff, could all have half-hourly services to LHR at peak hours, as smaller planes could be used that don’t go to Heathrow at the moment because the landing slots are too expensive.
At the moment a lot of this regional connecting traffic goes out via Amsterdam on KLM, so the Dutch get the money.
Transport from LHR to Westminster is 60 minutes according to Google Maps. Check it. Transport from Gatwick to Westminster is 50 minutes.
Fly to Gatwick. There is a strong case for expanding Gatwick capacity.
To be honest , our years of worldwide international travel was always out of Heathrow and I simply do not understand why anyone would promote Gatwick over Heathrow
Gatwick is much cheaper and quicker to get into London.
Certainly isn’t quicker to get into London from Gatwick compared to Heathrow. The train takes half as long, for starters.
London is a big place. It's easier to get to Gatwick from some bits of London (like where I am coz I'm near a Thameslink station). It's easier to get to Heathrow from other bits.
Direct trains from Heathrow to Ilford (albeit every 30 mins), no direct trains from Gatwick to Ilford
Well, you don't expect people from Ilford to go South of the River, do you?
Very many moons ago, when I'd pop down from Uni to visit friends in north London I'd ask "what's X up to these days?" Awkward pause, "Oh, they moved south of the river" as if the waters had closed over their heads as they did so....
If you’ve not spent time South of the river though, you’ve missed the delights of Sainsbury’s cafe in New Cross Gate as articulated by @OnlyLivingBoy
Not only that but there’s a B&M bargains there now, and a reasonably priced petrol station.
As Samuel Johnson memorably wrote, “a man who is tired of Sainsbury’s is tired of life; for there is in Sainsbury’s all that life can afford. Unlike Aldi which has a limited selection.”
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
He stabbed one of the girls 122 times.
Terrorism is simply deathly violence in pursuit of a political motive. It’s unrelated to how many times someone is stabbed, or whether a killer takes a taxi or not.
The failure was not to sufficiently recognise Rudakubana as a terrorist, but rather to sufficiently recognise him as bent on homicidal intent.
A lifelong friend and I were discussing someone we were at school with 38 years ago. At the time we and all sane fellow pupils just avoided him. I said I thought we had just been naive and that he was an over compensating homosexual, the way that whenever you went to ***** he was always hanging around the smelliest public toilets. My friend thought he should have been sectioned and sent straight to Broadmoor. The fact is he hasn't murdered anyone in the last 38 years, or if he has then it wasn't anyone important enough for it to be mentioned in the Wessy Gessy. He is the only person I have ever met who seemed genuinely dangerous. How did he land at a harmless school like *** ? We believed he had been transferred to our school as a Boarding School after some attempted murder in some other school. No doubt that was bullshit but I relate it here because there was no psychiatry stuff and fortunately he hasn't killed anyone. Made attending school a misery for some fellow pupils certainly.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
For now, if the Democrats take Congress back in 2026 and the Presidency back in 2028 though they will have noticed the Tech giants leaders kissing Trump's ring and will get tough with them
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
Couzens also hated women.
Still managed to marry one (not an incel, I mean). But fine if you want to call him a terrorist too.
Ok. Although I'm generally happier calling terrorists murderers than murderers terrorists. The "terrorism" label imbues a kind of gravitas that l don't feel is merited much of the time.
Most of the public prefer us to be shackled to an economic bloc that is currently in decline rather than one that is motoring ahead by comparison.
Taz, we are adrift and going under, hard to see how we ever get out of the downward spiral when you see the dross that run the country. It is hard to conceive how so many talentless people are politician's.
Indeed and they all, or mainly, seem to come from the same route. Via NGO's, Charities or former SPAD's. No real life experience. We have a business department where the ministers have no real life experience of running a business.
At least Rachel Reeves now seems to get the need you actually have to do something to get growth rather than just speak about it. However there are too many like Ed Miliband in the govt who will stymie growth.
The same Ed Miliband who is steam rolling through solar farms, on shore wind and pylons ?
I think some of his ideas are crackers (carbon capture, 5% reliance on gas also seems a bit low) but he seems one of the few who actually had a plan for when in government and is cracking on with it.
Objecting to runway 3 at Heathrow and airport expansion, stopping the mine in Cumbria, stopping new oil and gas in the North sea is hardly the act of a man embracing opportunities for growth.
I am all in favour of renewables but for the foreseeable future we will need oil and gas and we will also need oil for the other by products that come from it.
I think it's important to seperate oil and gas.
Gas: New licences would have an immaterial impact on North Sea production, which will fall precipitously over the next 10 years regardless of your policy. We will continue to import a very large proportion from friendly countries like Norway.
Oil: The inverse. New licenses would have a material impact on the amount extracted (though it will still fall off like gas) , but the UK has roughly balanced imports/exports (£30 billion each way).
I think we could have an interesting debate about oil, particularly given it's non-energy uses. But gas is a fantasy, and therefore electricity generation and heating is going to have to be primarily renewables/heat pumps.
I don’t find you remotely credible on this issue.
If the north sea is going to run out of oil and gas then private firms will move away from extraction ex gov't intervention anyway.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying
Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”
In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
Bomb = Terrorism?
Not sure that's the case. A strong correlation, though.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
Couzens also hated women.
Still managed to marry one (not an incel, I mean). But fine if you want to call him a terrorist too.
Ok. Although I'm generally happier calling terrorists murderers than murderers terrorists. The "terrorism" label imbues a kind of gravitas that l don't feel is merited much of the time.
That is a bit like the woman on the comedy sketch show who insisted her husband wasn't murdered, he was assassinated. He was unalived, end of, the distinction is no distinction.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
Interesting thing about Musk's new DOGE position. It's gone well beyond "cost cutting".
The executive order puts him in charge of US government software, and gives him unfettered access to all unclassified US government information.
There must be a suspicion he could use his position to further his own interests rather than those of the American people. Although I guess that's bang in the spirit of things now.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Interesting thing about Musk's new DOGE position. It's gone well beyond "cost cutting".
The executive order puts him in charge of US government software, and gives him unfettered access to all unclassified US government information.
There must be a suspicion he could use his position to further his own interests rather than those of the American people. Although I guess that's bang in the spirit of things now.
I think your spellchecker somehow autocorrected "presumption" to "suspicion".
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
For now, if the Democrats take Congress back in 2026 and the Presidency back in 2028 though they will have noticed the Tech giants leaders kissing Trump's ring and will get tough with them
Watching Zuck, Bezos, and yesterday Jamie Dimon try and suck up to Trump after the election has been rather amusing.
I suspect that at least one of those three is going to end up being totally screwed by the government in the next four years.
What’s surprising is that a donation of $1m to the “inaugural fund” is seemingly enough to get a pair of tickets to the inauguration itself. Although Bezos bought a +1 who forgot to get dressed for the occasion.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying
Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”
In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison
In some ways that would be the easy way out, assuming he is sentenced to a long prison term and an inevitable life sentence, even if not a whole life order, he should serve in full the sentence the court gives.
It does seem though he was on the spectrum, as indeed is Musk, it is a very broad spectrum in terms of what those with autism end up doing. One a convicted terrorist murderer, the other the richest man on earth. Internet companies also need to take more action to remove illegal content from their websites so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands as in this case
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
I can't see that in any of the reporting. Could you send us a link?
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying
Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”
In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison
In some ways that would be the easy way out, assuming he is sentenced to a long prison term and an inevitable life sentence, even if not a whole life order, he should serve in full the sentence the court gives
If he killed himself then we save zillions and we get the benefit of a quasi death penalty without the moral quandary. Win win
We should offer it, forcefully, to anyone convicted of murder facing a whole life tariff. Take the pills, bye bye
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
The bizarre assumption in the header that membership of the SM would magically create growth here is just irritating. Membership did not increase our growth, it increased our trade deficit. That meant the benefits of our (excessive) consumption were felt elsewhere, not here. To be absolutely clear about it a trade deficit is measured as a negative when assessing growth. The larger the deficit the more it negatively impacts on growth.
So why does anyone think that membership of the SM would increase growth? What is the evidence that we are more competitive than when we left the SM? What new opportunities are available to us that would improve our export capacity? I am seeing the reverse. Germany is really struggling at the moment, on the edge of recession, and has been for a few years now. I don't see additional demand for UK products or services there. France is not much better. Overall the EU is growing quite slowly, dragged down by German underperformance.
If we were to make a go of the SM we would need years and years of major investment in our industry to boost productivity. We might, arguably, have started that thanks to Hunt's more generous write off provisions but we need to do so much more. We need to boost our skills levels. We need to think about how it could be made more attractive to employ people in the UK rather than elsewhere in the SM. Reeves' NI changes, of course, had the opposite effect.
Membership of the SM can be a good or a bad but it is not a given benefit. It is only a benefit if we can make it work for us. If we can reduce our trade deficit and, in fantasy land, even generate a surplus it would be a boost to growth. When we have economic policies, taxation policies and the skills base to compete we can think about it. Right now it seems a continuation of the same policies that have impoverished this country over the last 30 years, turning us into a net debtor country with much of our remaining capacity owned by others.
The impact of Brexit on the UK economy will be worse than that caused by the pandemic, according to the chairman of the UK fiscal watchdog.
Richard Hughes said the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) had assumed leaving the EU would “reduce our long run GDP by around 4%”, adding in comments to the BBC: “We think that the effect of the pandemic will reduce that (GDP) output by a further 2%.”
The Single Market was one of Thatcher’s many fine achievements, it helps grow the economy.
That's bullshit because it doesn't take into account future industries only what currently exists. I hate to go back to the same theme over and over, however, the UK is now the single largest destination for AI investment in Europe and our market share is probably going to go above 80% over the next couple of years assuming Labour don't do anything stupid like join the single market. That investment is going to be worth tens of billions per year in the UK that we wouldn't get within the EU, by itself it's worth more than anything we may lose from not being in the single market.
These analyses always, always fail to take into account the something where there was previously nothing factor. AI was previously a global nothing, now it is the largest and fastest growing industry in the world and the UK has a huge role to play in it while the EU has regulated itself into a cul-de-sac. Regulatory flexibility is worth more to us as a nation than anything the single market will ever be worth, we're about to vary our regulations on biotech which my old colleagues tell me will be worth billions in investment in the UK as money pours in to attract the best and brightest across Europe, people who don't want to move to the US or Asia but are happy to live and work here and create value where the EU has stifled innovation yet again.
You are possibly correct on this, and any deals with the EU must not give away what's likely the only real benefit of Brexit.
I suspect Europe will have the same realisation about the downside of regulation fairly soon (a few politicians already have), but will take much longer to change than we can do in our own.
Rejoiners (of which I still count myself one) need to be realistic about this.
But it's not just AI where we can outcompete the EU, biotech is the next big flashpoint where the EU is about to regulate the industry into another cul-de-sac while we will remain free of these interferences. I was also quite pleased to see that Reeves has finally said aloud what the whole City already knows, the current financial regulations have completely stifled risk taking and junking it and also junking stamp duty on shares will mean people take more risk with their capital because the returns will be available. We need to be a country where Monzo and Revolut are happy to list on the LSE rather than hop over pond to get a better valuation because the American market encourages people to take risk.
Reeves has said some sensible things recently
Here’s a mad thought. Is it possible that brutal economic and political reality have forced Reeves and Starmer to U turn, or come up with new ideas? That might actually work?
Evidence
Reeves backtracking on Nom Dom. Also saying “let’s go for Heathrow runway 3 and fuck Net Zero”. Her remarks about the City and more
Meanwhile Starmer sounds like Reform announcing all these inquiries on culture war issues and they’ve now proposed to reverse some of the mad education crap as well. And now Starmer says yes there is a Brexit benefit, we can regulate for ourselves, let’s go for it
Hmmmmm
It will be the irony of ironies if I end up pleased that I voted for them, given that I only voted for them to annoy and discombobulate @kinabalu
I think they might finally have realised if they don't grow the economy Labour will face an extinction level election in 2029, under 50 seats bad.
The next big step is to shit can Ed Miliband and get someone who will build a proper energy generation network immediately and rip up the planning rules on power generation. Bung Rolls Royce £5bn to get the first 2 SMRs built while we're at it.
What evidence do you have that SMR's can be built within budget ?
Nuclear energy just seems to suffer from magical thinking ever since it was too cheap to meter.
The security measures & costs will remain unchanged. The civils won't change per MW of capacity.
The ONLY possible way they could become cheap is if we got huge economies of scale if they were manufactured in significant numbers. However historically the learning curve hasn't worked everywhere for nuclear - some would argue its been negative in USA and UK over last 30 years, but thats as much safety post Chernobyl
South Korea is far better - but how many new stations they open is a bit in the balance.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
By that logic, wouldn't Wayne Couzens be defined as a terrorist as well? Presumably so. I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that. Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Couzens was sexually motivated. Rudakubana was motivated by a hate of people and, I'd suggest, specifically women and girls.
Couzens also hated women.
Still managed to marry one (not an incel, I mean). But fine if you want to call him a terrorist too.
Ok. Although I'm generally happier calling terrorists murderers than murderers terrorists. The "terrorism" label imbues a kind of gravitas that l don't feel is merited much of the time.
That is a bit like the woman on the comedy sketch show who insisted her husband wasn't murdered, he was assassinated. He was unalived, end of, the distinction is no distinction.
Yes it's nice to have all these words but you won't go far wrong with murder imo. That's the crime at the end of the day. Murder. Sentence to reflect its impact and degree of foulness.
Who would Briton's rather have their pensions invested in, the US or the EU?
A good question. In the short term, I expect US stocks to do well, but longer term, I am very worried about what trade wars do to them US economy (although of course that will hit the EU too), and I am worried about the deterioration of the rule of law in the US. So, ultimately, I’d rather have my pension invested in the EU.
The pension fund that I am a trustee of has been overweight in US stocks for the last decade, specifically the large oligarchy type firms such as Apple, Microsoft, Amazon, Alphabet and Mastercard. It has been an extremely successful strategy giving us exceptional returns. Past performance no guarantee of future etc but with Trump in the Whitehouse and Vance in the belfry I think any risk of antitrust provisions against these behemoths is limited and they will continue to do very well as a class. Really can't see anything in Europe that is even close.
I got a ten percent return investing in major tech stocks, over 11 months. TEN PERCENT
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
These companies have grossly abused their market dominance and financial strength to buy out and destroy possible competitors. The long term consequences of this are not actually optimal but it is crazy not to be along for the ride, especially given the current political climate.
Yeah. Investing right now is all about investing in technology especially robotics and you-know-what
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
Investing in Tesla is a bet on Musk, not on the company's actual performance. The other six have long track records of financial delivery. But they need to be able to sell freely in markets outside the US in order to carry on growing. What looks invulnerable now can very quickly look quite precarious. A four year continuation of a bull market that has already been running for quite a while is a bold call.
I’m certainly not locking up my money for 4 years! I’m just saying it’s a pretty safe and likely lucrative ve investment now. I shall keep a watchful brief
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It was a racially-motivated hate crime.
The reports from the sentencing hearing are truly grim.
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
He’s looking at several decades of solitary confinement, and will probably never get out in reality. Something like 20 year minimums, to be served consecutively, he’ll be 78 before he’s eligible for parole.
He seems like a prime candidate for Assisted Dying
Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”
In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison
In some ways that would be the easy way out, assuming he is sentenced to a long prison term and an inevitable life sentence, even if not a whole life order, he should serve in full the sentence the court gives
If he killed himself then we save zillions and we get the benefit of a quasi death penalty without the moral quandary. Win win
We should offer it, forcefully, to anyone convicted of murder facing a whole life tariff. Take the pills, bye bye
Surely it’s just easier to give him sheets for his bed, or give him a dressing gown with a belt?
@astor_charlie Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
Sorry, how do you mean? Female targets doesn't in itself mean terrorism.
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
It does if they were targeted for being female. I think it's quite likely that was the case.
Jack the Ripper wasn't a terrorist though.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
Nature of the crime. If he'd set of a bomb, that would have ***automatically*** made it terrorism.
How come the people blowing up ULEZ cameras haven't been charged with that then?
Terrorism is not a well defined term and its use is heavily politicised. This has been true for well over one and a quarter centuries.
Comments
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crm7wj3m28po#:~:text=Sainsbury's has said it will raise hourly pay,help manage a particularly tough cost inflation environment".
Reeves certainly deserves the blame for some of the freeze in hiring and job losses out there but in this case, not sure of that.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jan/23/rachel-reeves-non-dom-tax-rule-uk-davos?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Other
However I was minded of several stories recently in the press in a similar vein to these.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/money/other/i-was-told-my-pension-was-safe-then-i-lost-300-000/ar-AA1uVlBl?ocid=BingNewsVerp
https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/pensions-and-retirement/why-higher-borrowing-costs-pension-savings-3471513
Still, so long as it doesn't reference Donald Trump I'm happy.
Just announce a review and kick it into the long grass while trying to come up with something effective that addresses the institutional failings here.
It often coincides, as this year, with my getting my tax bill and realizing OK so I’m not bankrupt, it could be worse (it could be better, but still)
It’s a moment of relief, the cessation of pain, the light at the end, not the beginning of the end, but the end of the beginning
it’s like when the tooth cleaner finally stops the horrible scraping and moves on to the gentler but still painful whizzy thing
I know of people who registered their child as diagnosed with ADHD at 15 - and not received any help by the time the child is 18....
@astor_charlie
Footage of Axel Rudakubana in the taxi arriving was played to the court.
He was heard asking the driver where 34a Hart Street was.
The driver points in the direction of the building and then asks if Rudakubana is paying with cash or card.
So he did know what he was going to attack when he got in the taxi. It wasn't a case of the girls being in the wrong place at the wrong time. It was very clearly an attack against women and girls. That is terrorism.
I liquidated it a few weeks ago, to be ready for my tax bill. I will now reinvest
I said at the time I invested this money, “I just don’t see how these companies fail, they are too big to go bust, the ML boom is not over, it is probably just beginning”. Some on here told me I was mad, big bust coming etc
Note that the new rate Sainsburys is using is a £12.60 an hour. The new minimum wage, that is coming in this year, is £12.21
5% rise means that they were previously paying £11.62 - when the minimum wage was £11.44
So much of the rise is about paying above minimum wage.
The failure was not to sufficiently recognise Rudakubana as a terrorist, but rather to sufficiently recognise him as bent on homicidal intent.
Like the Bourbons, they have learned nothing and forgotten nothing.
They have made SOME bad early decisions, but that doesn't determine what comes next.
Worth noting that Labour descended from Peak Transactivism prior to the election: probably because it's a potential serious vote loser.
Labour began rowing back from
https://youtu.be/1CAzwewVjZ0
Who is gonna benefit from this? It’s very hard to call the small guys. To see an OpenAI emerging or an Anthropic
But the big seven are all SO big they’d have to calamitously fuck up - or be broken up - not to benefit from a tech revolution when they dominate tech and simply buy their smaller rivals
As you say Trump is not gonna get tough on them. They were all at his inauguration and they’re all donating and they are all genuflecting and enabling his political goals (eg meta allowing freer speech and abandoning lefty bias). Their power brings more power to the USA and to Trump
Nothing is a sure thing but for the next four years they are close to a sure thing
(Not saying it isn't in this case btw given the other factors)
I think we'd have to broaden the definition of terrorism quite a bit to do that.
Personally, I'd stick with murdering fuckers for both Rudakubana and Couzens.
Well I'd say six months of consistent bad decisions isn't 'scant'.
But if they are rowing back to the real world, good. They've still got four and a half years to go.
Have we done this?
"ICC prosecutor seeks arrest of Taliban leaders over persecution of women"
"The International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor on Thursday said he was seeking arrest warrants against senior Taliban leaders in Afghanistan over the persecution of women, a crime against humanity.
"Karim Khan said there were reasonable grounds to suspect that Supreme Leader Haibatullah Akhundzada and chief justice Abdul Hakim Haqqani "bear criminal responsibility for the crime against humanity of persecution on gender grounds".
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/icc-prosecutor-seeks-arrest-taliban-123449688.html
https://x.com/atrupar/status/1882427958801109262
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pDoELsVX3ks (clean version)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBoa_jzIALA (title sequence to the 1997 film "Face", which only I have seen apparently)
I doubt he'll last long in prison.
It's gone well beyond "cost cutting".
The executive order puts him in charge of US government software, and gives him unfettered access to all unclassified US government information.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euro-Mediterranean_free_trade_area
New one on me.
Are you seeking a distinction between different types of misogyny?
His life expectancy is prison would be very short.
I see Sara Sharif's father has already had some prison justice meted out. I expect it is only a matter of time,
If they bought shares then those will be valued at current market value - i.e. sod all.
Not only that but there’s a B&M bargains there now, and a reasonably priced petrol station.
As Samuel Johnson memorably wrote, “a man who is tired of Sainsbury’s is tired of life; for there is in Sainsbury’s all that life can afford. Unlike Aldi which has a limited selection.”
See my lengthy post on this yesterday.
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://www.nstauthority.co.uk/media/9002/ss_and_dd_charts_feb_2023_v2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjd64L_hYyLAxXCX0EAHSvzBLYQFnoECBwQAQ&usg=AOvVaw0x1wSHjeK9f83sXA3qFZEU
Would save us all a fuckton of money. “Hey axel, your life is going to be endless misery from now on, with the occasional prospect of a hideous death in the showers. We can offer these dreamy pills. Think about it”
In fact we should offer it to all of these grotesque monsters mouldering away in prison
Not sure that's the case. A strong correlation, though.
I suspect that at least one of those three is going to end up being totally screwed by the government in the next four years.
What’s surprising is that a donation of $1m to the “inaugural fund” is seemingly enough to get a pair of tickets to the inauguration itself. Although Bezos bought a +1 who forgot to get dressed for the occasion.
It does seem though he was on the spectrum, as indeed is Musk, it is a very broad spectrum in terms of what those with autism end up doing. One a convicted terrorist murderer, the other the richest man on earth. Internet companies also need to take more action to remove illegal content from their websites so it doesn't fall into the wrong hands as in this case
At school, Rudakubana was known to talk of "Britain needing a genocide like Rwanda" and, at a football match in which he played around the age of 15, he declared the need for a "white genocide".
We should offer it, forcefully, to anyone convicted of murder facing a whole life tariff. Take the pills, bye bye
Nuclear energy just seems to suffer from magical thinking ever since it was too cheap to meter.
The security measures & costs will remain unchanged. The civils won't change per MW of capacity.
The ONLY possible way they could become cheap is if we got huge economies of scale if they were manufactured in significant numbers.
However historically the learning curve hasn't worked everywhere for nuclear - some would argue its been negative in USA and UK over last 30 years, but thats as much safety post Chernobyl
South Korea is far better - but how many new stations they open is a bit in the balance.