Thanks to this government, Britain's oldest racing car manufacturer (a British, profitable, well run business, with pipeline investment) has had to put all their new vehicle plans on hold, costing jobs there and throughout the chain in the UK, along with the government losing the taxes the investment would have provided.
Suspect all other niche motor companies, that we thrive with, will be thinking the same
Why don't you tell them to stop moaning from the comfort of your retirement chair? Real life impacts, clearly not open for business.
I'll let you get back to your life and soul of tea and dunking biscuits and bad takes.
Lawrence Whittaker @ListerLawrence A statement from the Lister Motor Company.
Thanks to this government, Britain's oldest racing car manufacturer (a British, profitable, well run business, with pipeline investment) has had to put all their new vehicle plans on hold, costing jobs there and throughout the chain in the UK, along with the government losing the taxes the investment would have provided.
Suspect all other niche motor companies, that we thrive with, will be thinking the same
Why don't you tell them to stop moaning from the comfort of your retirement chair? Real life impacts, clearly not open for business.
I'll let you get back to your life and soul of tea and dunking biscuits and bad takes.
Lawrence Whittaker @ListerLawrence A statement from the Lister Motor Company.
What a load of fucking shit. To the limited extent that Lister produce anything, it's anachronistic junk. Hasten them to their well-deserved oblivion.
That's lovely. Our local anarchist joins forces with old retired chap to cheer on the demise of a profitable British company and potential jobs, through no fault of their own, because they don't like their products. Fucktards.
The Protestant Reformation would have happened in England even without Henry VIII, and even if the State had tried to resist it, IMHO.
Unless England was willing to adopt brutal counter-reformation methods, including burnings at the stake and massacres, it was spreading in London and the South-East, just as it was - and did - eventually in Scotland and Wales, where it took a more Calvinist/puritan form.
Jack Scarisbrick, Christopher Haigh and Eammon Duffy etc etc etc would beg to differ.
The Prayer Book Rebellion and the Pilgrimage of Grace were significant and popular revolts against the Reformation in western and northern England. It took a lot of brutality in many parts of England to enforce the new church - martial law in the northern counties after the Pilgrimage of Grace.
The idea that the Reformation was welcomed with open arms in Wales is also something of a myth - from 1549, all worship in Wales was to be in English, but most people in Wales only spoke Welsh. If William Morgan hadn't translated the Bible into Welsh as late as 1588 it would not have taken root.
Scotland's reformation was a think of itself, as shown by the differing national churches that emerged there and in England.
My guess is the West and the North would have stayed Catholic, but London and the South-East would have seen the spread of Protestantism.
Wales ended up with a non-conformist tradition, which grew from the bottom-up notwithstanding the Church of Wales.
Like a lot of things there would have been a divide either side of the Tees-Exe line. In England at least.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Neither Labour nor an MP.
We have had some seriously shit Chancellors, and others who attracted party political approbrium for doing things the other side didn't like.
Nobody has even been dubbed x from Accounts before. Kwazi from Accounts? George? Gordon? Nor would they have been - they are Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Perhaps its a complete coincidence that Tory types have decided to pile in with the belittling in a so far unique way to the first woman in the role.
Or perhaps your hatred is clouding your judgement.
Thanks to this government, Britain's oldest racing car manufacturer (a British, profitable, well run business, with pipeline investment) has had to put all their new vehicle plans on hold, costing jobs there and throughout the chain in the UK, along with the government losing the taxes the investment would have provided.
Suspect all other niche motor companies, that we thrive with, will be thinking the same
Why don't you tell them to stop moaning from the comfort of your retirement chair? Real life impacts, clearly not open for business.
I'll let you get back to your life and soul of tea and dunking biscuits and bad takes.
Lawrence Whittaker @ListerLawrence A statement from the Lister Motor Company.
Thanks to this government, Britain's oldest racing car manufacturer (a British, profitable, well run business, with pipeline investment) has had to put all their new vehicle plans on hold, costing jobs there and throughout the chain in the UK, along with the government losing the taxes the investment would have provided.
Suspect all other niche motor companies, that we thrive with, will be thinking the same
Why don't you tell them to stop moaning from the comfort of your retirement chair? Real life impacts, clearly not open for business.
I'll let you get back to your life and soul of tea and dunking biscuits and bad takes.
Lawrence Whittaker @ListerLawrence A statement from the Lister Motor Company.
What a load of fucking shit. To the limited extent that Lister produce anything, it's anachronistic junk. Hasten them to their well-deserved oblivion.
That's lovely. Our local anarchist joins forces with old retired chap to cheer on the demise of a profitable British company and potential jobs, through no fault of their own, because they don't like their products. Fucktards.
Of course it's their fault. Their product line up is MaxPower versions of out-of-production JLR cars that weren't very good to start with and million quid kit cars. That's not a sustainable business model in the 2025 automotive industry no matter what the government does or doesn't do. See Ruf for an example of how to do that low production run modification business correctly. Even I'd have a Ruf RGT-8 and I am notoriously snobby about cars.
Is the new Ruf SCR not their own homologation in Germany? Which is nuts when you think about what’s required for that.
We should celebrate all the low-volume car manufacturers, if only so that the next generation can have the opportunity to enjoy what we have all enjoyed.
The under-capitalised, low volume manufacturing of shoddy sports cars has been a leitmotif of the British car industry since the dawn of time when Bernie Ecclestone's prostate wasn't the size of a satsuma. I see little to celebrate. Caterham, maybe, for the sheer commercial acumen involved in wringing every last quid out of the 7 platform for decades on end.
I would have thought you would have loved a Seven, 0 to 100 out of a Duratec or K series in the time it takes to blink. Granted, not very safely.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
"At a November 2015 Royal Society/National Academies meeting on "Gain of Function and Options for Regulation" at Chicheley Hall, UK, the UNC-Wuhan coronavirus research project was singled out as the project most likely--of all projects in the world--to cause a pandemic."
People really really really really need to go on trial for this. And facing severe penalties. Twenty MILLION people are dead
Appended to the article in question:
Editors’ note, March 2020 We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.
March 2020, when lab leak was officially prohibited as a “racist conspiracy theory”
This isn’t quite the correction you think
The point is that people were already claiming that this article proved a lab leak 5 years ago. It's nothing new.
it’s new to me, and, it seem, new to many people here (and on TwiX)
I am constantly surprised by the weight of the evidence that piles up for Lab Leak
I mean, WTF, they KNEW it was horribly risky back in 2015??
Were the activities of the lab risky? Did the pandemic originate in the lab?
These questions are distinct. If the research carried no risk it could not have led to the pandemic. But that it was risky doesn't mean it did.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
It is somewhat different. Reeves is being diminished because she is a woman, and women can't progress further than a clerical role in certain circles, whilst all your hilarious names for Starmer are because you don't like him.
"At a November 2015 Royal Society/National Academies meeting on "Gain of Function and Options for Regulation" at Chicheley Hall, UK, the UNC-Wuhan coronavirus research project was singled out as the project most likely--of all projects in the world--to cause a pandemic."
People really really really really need to go on trial for this. And facing severe penalties. Twenty MILLION people are dead
Appended to the article in question:
Editors’ note, March 2020 We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.
March 2020, when lab leak was officially prohibited as a “racist conspiracy theory”
This isn’t quite the correction you think
Yet being tagged as a racist conspiracy theory is the only reason you got interested in it, in the first place.
"At a November 2015 Royal Society/National Academies meeting on "Gain of Function and Options for Regulation" at Chicheley Hall, UK, the UNC-Wuhan coronavirus research project was singled out as the project most likely--of all projects in the world--to cause a pandemic."
People really really really really need to go on trial for this. And facing severe penalties. Twenty MILLION people are dead
Appended to the article in question:
Editors’ note, March 2020 We are aware that this story is being used as the basis for unverified theories that the novel coronavirus causing COVID-19 was engineered. There is no evidence that this is true; scientists believe that an animal is the most likely source of the coronavirus.
March 2020, when lab leak was officially prohibited as a “racist conspiracy theory”
This isn’t quite the correction you think
Who was in charge in March 2020 and therefore ordered the massive cover-up? Lock Trump up!! Oh no, both him and Biden have immunity for everything they did while president.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
It is somewhat different. Reeves is being diminished because she is a woman, and women can't progress further than a clerical role in certain circles, whilst all your hilarious names for Starmer are because you don't like him.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
It is somewhat different. Reeves is being diminished because she is a woman, and women can't progress further than a clerical role in certain circles, whilst all your hilarious names for Starmer are because you don't like him.
Does this make all female politicians immune from criticism or ridicule? Oh dear, this sounds very patriarchal. We mustn't mock her because she is a lady old chap. Not the done thing.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
It is somewhat different. Reeves is being diminished because she is a woman, and women can't progress further than a clerical role in certain circles, whilst all your hilarious names for Starmer are because you don't like him.
No, it's because she lied about her job. Rachel from Complaints would be more accurate (but not as funny).
I happen to admire her a little for taking a job downgrade so she could get selected as a Labour candidate.
R AI CHEL FROM ACCOUNTS. (I think I got away with it.)
Can somebody please explain why some twat of a Labour MP said that calling her that was sexist ffs?
Because it's effective and they want to close down that attack line.
It's not much of an attack line. "Reeves is shit" tells your story more succinctly than referring to her as "Rachel from accounts".
That is subtly the implication of Rachel from Accounts: that she's overpromoted and not up to the job, and therefore crap.
Attack lines need to be humorous as well as wounding. You can't just litter in the four letter words for them, although that was effectively the case with George Osborne.
There's an underlining misogyny. Why not Keir the articled clerk?
He is called Two-Tier Keir, Sir Beer Korma, or Sir Sheer W@nker. Or, as I call him, the Tedious Tactical Triangulator.
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
It is somewhat different. Reeves is being diminished because she is a woman, and women can't progress further than a clerical role in certain circles, whilst all your hilarious names for Starmer are because you don't like him.
Glenda Jackson on Margaret Thatcher: "A woman? Not on my terms."
I welcome Rachel Reeves' and Starmer's move to widen the breadth of investments that pension funds can make. The intentional coralling of pension funds into certain types of investments played a big role in the LDI crisis.
The only issue I have with this policy is that at the same time as making it easier for pension funds to invest, the economic environment created by Starmer and Reeves is not conducive to that investment - businesses are shrinking not growing. This approach should really be teamed with moves to ease the tax burden on businesses, get energy prices down, and ease planning (this one appears to be happening). Or presumably they will simply invest elsewhere.
I think this is a positive overall, and it's easy to overlook it because the overall approach has been so shambolical.
That's not what she is doing though. What she is doing is making it easier for employers whose pension is currently in surplus to withdraw that surplus so that they have capital to invest (or spend on dividends). That's my problem with the proposal.
I would welcome giving pension funds more freedom to invest in small companies and start ups but there is a question of scale. If you have £1000 to invest and that is trebled by a successful investment in a small company that is a success. If you have £10bn to invest its not even a rounding error. What will happen is that we will get more funds that specialise in small cap investment and pension funds will invest in them to spread the risks. That would be a good thing but it is silly to pretend that it is creating more investment when that money is already invested.
We need our small start ups to be developed long term to become global leaders in their fields. I like the idea of pension funds being able to be long term investors in those types of companies. I appreciate that that may not be how the detailed policy turns out, but I am going to give it a chance until I've seen more detail.
Comments
Nowhere was it present from the very start. It was a function, to some extent, of the early modern age.
NEW THREAD
You can't just pull out the misogyny card every time a female politician acquires a nickname.
These questions are distinct. If the research carried no risk it could not have led to the pandemic. But that it was risky doesn't mean it did.
I happen to admire her a little for taking a job downgrade so she could get selected as a Labour candidate.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/shine-a-light/thatcher-woman-not-on-my-terms/