The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
It's nearly over now, but I've found 2025 pretty depressing - not for me personally, but for 'society' as a whole. It's been epitomised by far too much acrimony, division and discord in public, and private, discourse. Although I'd be among the last to quote Thatcher, I hope that 2026 brings rather more harmony - and good humour and civilised public debate.
On that note, HNY to all, and may your dreams come true in 2026.
Agree but highly unlikely to improve in the short term at least. HNY to you
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
With a very late entry, we have winner for most fucking shit idiotic post of 2025. Forced labour for pensioners is a terrible policy that would be radioactively toxic in any electoral prospectus.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
And yet you miss Amanda Spielman and Dominic Cummings?
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
That’s a thought. Should minimum wage and minimum pension be equal?
It might make the future creation of a universal basic income more comprehensible and concentrate the minds of younger people on the realities of aging on a limited income.
Basic state pension of £230 per week is equivalent to a 18.8 hour week on minimum wage
yes fecking peanuts
Equivalent to a £250k pension pot.
According to Google AI the average *household* pays £571k in income tax over their lifetime.
Assuming that’s typically 2 adults that means that they are basically getting it all back in pension income
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Who was the only man ever to receive the Soviet Union’s Order of Lenin, Italy’s Knight Grand Cross with Collar, and to become a Knight Commander of the British Empire (KBE)?
I'll help you out with a small hint.
He was an American capitalist.
He also had a brand of toothpaste named after him. Nobody else can touch that.
M C Hammer
(Arm and Hammer toothpaste, obviously)
Didn’t he get the order of friendship not the order of Lenin?
"You'll receive the Order of Lenin for this!" - Tim Curry in "The Hunt For Red October".
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
I vote for MalcomG as the volunteer museum guide for school trips. Education with no-nonsense discipline.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
Why the dislike for Jade Goody? She was fairly crass, but generally harmless and died 15 years ago at the age of only 29.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
I thought United Kingdom replaced Great Britain in 1800 as the official name with the Act of Union of that year. Strictly speaking, United Kingdom of Great Britain and [Northern] Ireland.
Anyhow I have always called it United Kingdom.
Officially it was the "Kingdom of Great Britain", before the Union with Ireland.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
In the Olympics
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team. * Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
I think there's a broader issue in Britain today that we're all about rights and entitlements, and not duty and obligations.
Of course, a bloody hard sell on the latter but we all rely on them to make our society a pleasant and safe place to live.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
Before CGI and (I think) all the lightning effects were hand-animated. I used to know a guy who knew the guy who did the lightning effects in "Highlander" by hand. If you see menacing clouds in an 1980's movie it's ink dropped into a low-pressure vapour tank where the top and bottom of the tank are different pressures/densities, enabling coloured layers. When the Enterprise rises behind the Reliant in "Star Trek 2" and vapour is swirling off the model, that's what's really happening. If you look at the departure of the Enterprise from Spacedock in "ST:TMP" you (used to be) able to see the black armature holding the model in place from the side of the secondary hull. The round reflective globe spaceship in "Starman" was done with a fish-eye lens. The astronauts clambering alongside the Space Jockey in "Alien" are children in small spacesuits.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
You know the problem with that, which boils down to people saying "I paid my taxes" (whilst voting for those taxes to be lower than they probably ought to have been).
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
I think there's a broader issue in Britain today that we're all about rights and entitlements, and not duty and obligations.
Of course, a bloody hard sell on the latter but we all rely on them to make our society a pleasant and safe place to live.
Although oddly there are many things which are imposed as vague 'duties' which cause us many issues, because of the obligations they then put on the state which may not have been intended to that extent.
I was going to say that question is like the one about are Labour going to lose in Wales, but the latter might actually happen at last.
The Iranian regime is into the end game for the simple reason it has run out of water so is facing imminent famine - if not this coming year, then almost certainly 2027. But whether these current events are what precipitates the collapse is another question.
It also seems unlikely that whatever replaces it will be noticeably better.
However, it would be a further significant blow to Putin if it happens in the next few months.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
Before CGI and (I think) all the lightning effects were hand-animated. I used to know a guy who knew the guy who did the lightning effects in "Highlander" by hand. If you see menacing clouds in an 1980's movie it's ink dropped into a low-pressure vapour tank where the top and bottom of the tank are different pressures/densities, enabling coloured layers. When the Enterprise rises behind the Reliant in "Star Trek 2" and vapour is swirling off the model, that's what's really happening. If you look at the departure of the Enterprise from Spacedock in "ST:TMP" you (used to be) able to see the black armature holding the model in place from the side of the secondary hull. The round reflective globe spaceship in "Starman" was done with a fish-eye lens. The astronauts clambering alongside the Space Jockey in "Alien" are children in small spacesuits.
And don't get me started on "Moonraker"
A bit random, I know, but I got the 4K Blu-Ray version of Highlander for Christmas!
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
When was UKIP founded?
No idea. When did I claim the term United Kingdom had never been used in the past? (I've not been able to find what Tom Harwood twixed.)
I was going to say that question is like the one about are Labour going to lose in Wales, but the latter might actually happen at last.
The Iranian regime is into the end game for the simple reason it has run out of water so is facing imminent famine - if not this coming year, then almost certainly 2027. But whether these current events are what precipitates the collapse is another question.
It also seems unlikely that whatever replaces it will be noticeably better.
However, it would be a further significant blow to Putin if it happens in the next few months.
Iran is one of those countries that I forget how huge it is sometimes. In my head it is similar to Iraq, but it has twice the population for a start.
In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
In the Olympics
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team. * Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
Before CGI and (I think) all the lightning effects were hand-animated. I used to know a guy who knew the guy who did the lightning effects in "Highlander" by hand. If you see menacing clouds in an 1980's movie it's ink dropped into a low-pressure vapour tank where the top and bottom of the tank are different pressures/densities, enabling coloured layers. When the Enterprise rises behind the Reliant in "Star Trek 2" and vapour is swirling off the model, that's what's really happening. If you look at the departure of the Enterprise from Spacedock in "ST:TMP" you (used to be) able to see the black armature holding the model in place from the side of the secondary hull. The round reflective globe spaceship in "Starman" was done with a fish-eye lens. The astronauts clambering alongside the Space Jockey in "Alien" are children in small spacesuits.
And don't get me started on "Moonraker"
A bit random, I know, but I got the 4K Blu-Ray version of Highlander for Christmas!
They've long been intending to remake it, and apparently are finally moving forward with that.
My controversial take is that could be a very good idea, as I think it is a film that had loads of potential but was only goofily entertaining and actually quite shit when you take off the nostalgia goggles. Though the terribleness of the various sequels is hilarious.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
You know the problem with that, which boils down to people saying "I paid my taxes" (whilst voting for those taxes to be lower than they probably ought to have been).
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
If you figure it out then we petition the king to make you PM.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
Why the dislike for Jade Goody? She was fairly crass, but generally harmless and died 15 years ago at the age of only 29.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
I think there's a broader issue in Britain today that we're all about rights and entitlements, and not duty and obligations.
Of course, a bloody hard sell on the latter but we all rely on them to make our society a pleasant and safe place to live.
Good point. It reminds me of a former Foreign Secretary who felt it was his right to attend an indulgent KGB party in Italy without security detail support. Choosing an entitled potential shag over state security demonstrated neither duty nor obligation.
Or the head of UKIP/ Brexit/ Reform in Wales who took a bribe of peanuts to promote Russian interests in order to destabilise European support for continued Ukrainian independence. The evidence here speaks for itself.
In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
In the Olympics
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team. * Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
You know the problem with that, which boils down to people saying "I paid my taxes" (whilst voting for those taxes to be lower than they probably ought to have been).
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
If you figure it out then we petition the king to make you PM.
I don't think we need disturb His Majesty just yet.
In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
In the Olympics
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team. * Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
You know the problem with that, which boils down to people saying "I paid my taxes" (whilst voting for those taxes to be lower than they probably ought to have been).
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
If you figure it out then we petition the king to make you PM.
I don't think we need disturb His Majesty just yet.
We're likely to have a king for another 70 years at least (unless we become a republic, which is probably 50/50), so you have time.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
Before CGI and (I think) all the lightning effects were hand-animated. I used to know a guy who knew the guy who did the lightning effects in "Highlander" by hand. If you see menacing clouds in an 1980's movie it's ink dropped into a low-pressure vapour tank where the top and bottom of the tank are different pressures/densities, enabling coloured layers. When the Enterprise rises behind the Reliant in "Star Trek 2" and vapour is swirling off the model, that's what's really happening. If you look at the departure of the Enterprise from Spacedock in "ST:TMP" you (used to be) able to see the black armature holding the model in place from the side of the secondary hull. The round reflective globe spaceship in "Starman" was done with a fish-eye lens. The astronauts clambering alongside the Space Jockey in "Alien" are children in small spacesuits.
And don't get me started on "Moonraker"
A bit random, I know, but I got the 4K Blu-Ray version of Highlander for Christmas!
They've long been intending to remake it, and apparently are finally moving forward with that....
The BBC seem to have put up a paywall on its standard news site for audiences in the U.S.
So I don’t know why police are closing off Primrose Hill on NYE.
Another daft idea; the BBC should aim to be the global Wikipedia of news, not try to “compete” with Bloomberg or whatever.
It's described as "dynamic" and "selective".
Breaking news, World Service Radio, and podcasts are still free, I am told.
If we want a global wikipedia of news (an aspiration with which I agree), then we need to fund it properly. We do not because purblind little Englanders are offended, and Mr Starmer pays them too much attention.
At present, the Foreign Office (-25% on headcount), the British Council (withdrawing from ~40 countries), and the BBC World Service (no numbers to hand), are amongst areas of funding which aiui are being gutted, alongside overseas development aid (down to 0.3% of GDP plus billions diverted to asylum hotels etc).
I think this may be one of Mr Starmer's biggest strategic mistakes, and where he should have reversed the previous Government direction - at whatever cost, because this policy will cost more long-term than the alternative.
The central problem of our times, which nobody is anywhere near answering.
Numerically, we're richer than previous generations of Britons. We're richer overall than this time last year, not that anyone says that out loud. Yet we don't feel rich, and we keep concluding that we can only keep warm is by chucking another but of furniture on the fire. See all the soft power cuts you mention, then continue from there.
And yes, a lot of that is because we're increasingly a pension system with a country attached, and those pensions should have been paid for decades ago but weren't. But that can't be the entire story... can it?
It can't be the entire story, because in funding of pension systems we are pretty much right at the bottom of the league both by expenditure amongst developed countries (with the Anglosphere and some Asians - though I do not see that latter holding given demograhics), and by how said expenditure is increasing.
It's a debate unfortunately dominated by shouting
We do have the state pension triple lock though and we have a higher percentage with private pensions than the OECD average
That's correct.
However, as a fraction of average (mean) earnings, the State Pension - even the New State Pension - is still below what it was in 1980. The New State pension (ie the increased one brought in in 2016) on a full contribution record is still below 25% of that figure.
That's whilst the retirement age has gone from 60/65 to 67 from 2028.
What it has done has recovered the % of average income to what it was when Geoffrey Howe removed the Earnings Link, though that is as much caused by flatlining of average earnings.
As an aside - for a double lock, which one would you remove?
In general, however, pensioners have done extremely well, financially, over that period. That is why the triple lock should go.
Yes it should. I am sure they could sell it as a reform without much consequence. Either an average of the 3 or link it to wages (excl bonuses).
It should be means tested not replaced, state pensioners on just state pension now have an income below minimum wage
No they don't. Minimum wage is an hourly-worked rate, not a fixed rate.
They have an income below full-time minimum wage. They have an income above many of those working part time minimum wage. They have an income well above those working zero hours on minimum wage.
Considering they're not working, why shouldn't those who are working have a higher income? Especially given there are costs to working?
How about setting the pension at 20 hours a week minimum wage but requiring people under 70 to do 16 hours of volunteer work per week, and 8 hours from 70-75?
Feck off twat, having worked over 50 years and paid a shitload of NI & Tax , I would not be working for those clowns for free.
Not working for the government.
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
Consider how well the National Service 4 Da Yoof went down last year. It's not the only reason RIshi lost, but it signified something.
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
That’s why you link it to the pension. You are getting X from the state. You should put something back.
You know the problem with that, which boils down to people saying "I paid my taxes" (whilst voting for those taxes to be lower than they probably ought to have been).
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
Sure. And that’s why they got defence, the NHS, etc.
That’s why I would link it to an increase in the pension to say, 20 hours per week minimum wage and then ask people to work for less than that. And allow them to choose who they want to work for.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
Why the dislike for Jade Goody? She was fairly crass, but generally harmless and died 15 years ago at the age of only 29.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
He invented the electric bike, the double -decker bus and COVID inoculations, so determining that we should refer to Great Britain as the United Kingdom wasn't really one of his greatest achievements.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
Why the dislike for Jade Goody? She was fairly crass, but generally harmless and died 15 years ago at the age of only 29.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to reunify China and Taiwan in his annual New Year’s Eve speech in Beijing.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to annex Taiwan than whilst your dipshit President is in the Whitehouse.
Given his age, this year is probably his last opportunity.
Make sure your computers are up to date and that you are not overexposed on tech stocks including AI.
It was made 30 years ago, but the first Mission Impossible movie actually mentions AI, briefly
That movie really annoys me. Jim Phelps was no traitor!
I watched it recently. It now looks very outdated, and it’s actually quite dull except for the famous scene where they break into the Pentagon and the Eurostar scene, which remains breathtaking.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to reunify China and Taiwan in his annual New Year’s Eve speech in Beijing.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to annex Taiwan than whilst your dipshit President is in the Whitehouse.
Given his age, this year is probably his last opportunity.
Make sure your computers are up to date and that you are not overexposed on tech stocks including AI.
It was made 30 years ago, but the first Mission Impossible movie actually mentions AI, briefly
That movie really annoys me. Jim Phelps was no traitor!
I watched it recently. It now looks very outdated, and it’s actually quite dull except for the famous scene where they break into the Pentagon and the Eurostar scene, which remains breathtaking.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
Midnight is still seven hours away in Manhattan. Tonight there are apparently two “ball drops”, the second with red, white and blue to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.
2026 is gonna be a big year. Some historians pick 1976 as the year America started to rise again after its Vietnam-y, Nixon-ish, stagflation-ridden early 70s nadir.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
Midnight is still seven hours away in Manhattan. Tonight there are apparently two “ball drops”, the second with red, white and blue to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.
2026 is gonna be a big year. Some historians pick 1976 as the year America started to rise again after its Vietnam-y, Nixon-ish, stagflation-ridden early 70s nadir.
It would be a remarkable achievement for Trump if he could bookend the start and end of the United States of America on its 250th anniversary. Worthy even of a spot on Mount Rushmore as the man who ended the Republic.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to reunify China and Taiwan in his annual New Year’s Eve speech in Beijing.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to annex Taiwan than whilst your dipshit President is in the Whitehouse.
Given his age, this year is probably his last opportunity.
Make sure your computers are up to date and that you are not overexposed on tech stocks including AI.
It was made 30 years ago, but the first Mission Impossible movie actually mentions AI, briefly
That movie really annoys me. Jim Phelps was no traitor!
I watched it recently. It now looks very outdated, and it’s actually quite dull except for the famous scene where they break into the Pentagon and the Eurostar scene, which remains breathtaking.
No electrified tracks - it's on BBC1 right now!
I've never seen any of the other films and I think the lack of electrification in the first film is a big reason for that.
In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
In the Olympics
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team. * Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
And for those who identify as Trans? (Just kidding!)
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
While the dog hides upstairs from the sporadic fireworks, and you await happy emails from every retailer you have used over the past year, I am heading to bed for my customary NYE early night, so I will prematurely wish you all betting luck and best wishes for 2026.
Alternative list of “Best” Britons of the 21st Century
Jade Goody Michelle Mone Jared O’Mara Russell Brand Bonnie Blue John Darwin Liz Truss Katie Price’s son Harvey Camila Batmanghelidjh Andrew Mountbatten-Windsor Fred Goodwin Pete Doherty Henry Bolton Nadine Dorries Phillip Schofield Shamima Begum Harold Shipman Carl Beech Max Clifford Marc Francois Sally Bercow
Put like that, maybe we should be glad that things are going as well as they are.
Why the dislike for Jade Goody? She was fairly crass, but generally harmless and died 15 years ago at the age of only 29.
Sally Bercow also. She was an irritating self-publicist, but no worse than many others. I really don't think she is as repellent as most of the other names on that list.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
That’s not my claim. I don’t think it’s recently coined. However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain.
Just got back from watching a 40th anniverary screening of Back To The Future, first time I've seen it in one go without interruptions. What a fantastic film. The special effects hold up pretty well imo.
Before CGI and (I think) all the lightning effects were hand-animated. I used to know a guy who knew the guy who did the lightning effects in "Highlander" by hand. If you see menacing clouds in an 1980's movie it's ink dropped into a low-pressure vapour tank where the top and bottom of the tank are different pressures/densities, enabling coloured layers. When the Enterprise rises behind the Reliant in "Star Trek 2" and vapour is swirling off the model, that's what's really happening. If you look at the departure of the Enterprise from Spacedock in "ST:TMP" you (used to be) able to see the black armature holding the model in place from the side of the secondary hull. The round reflective globe spaceship in "Starman" was done with a fish-eye lens. The astronauts clambering alongside the Space Jockey in "Alien" are children in small spacesuits.
And don't get me started on "Moonraker"
A bit random, I know, but I got the 4K Blu-Ray version of Highlander for Christmas!
They've long been intending to remake it, and apparently are finally moving forward with that....
There can be only two
I am sad enough to have climbed onto the Cioch* and proclaimed there to be only one.
I maintain this to be the case, and will do so even after any sequel or remake.
I didn't take a plastic sword though, which was a bit poor.
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to reunify China and Taiwan in his annual New Year’s Eve speech in Beijing.
Xi will never have a better opportunity to annex Taiwan than whilst your dipshit President is in the Whitehouse.
Given his age, this year is probably his last opportunity.
Make sure your computers are up to date and that you are not overexposed on tech stocks including AI.
It was made 30 years ago, but the first Mission Impossible movie actually mentions AI, briefly
AI as a term was first popularised in 1956, although its antecedents arguably go back to maybe 1950 or 1943.
The first use of the term in a film may be 1970's "Colossus: The Forbin Project", although obviously "2001", 2 years earlier, prominently featured an AI, just called something else.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
Midnight is still seven hours away in Manhattan. Tonight there are apparently two “ball drops”, the second with red, white and blue to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.
2026 is gonna be a big year. Some historians pick 1976 as the year America started to rise again after its Vietnam-y, Nixon-ish, stagflation-ridden early 70s nadir.
It would be a remarkable achievement for Trump if he could bookend the start and end of the United States of America on its 250th anniversary. Worthy even of a spot on Mount Rushmore as the man who ended the Republic.
His name would live in history.
But Caesar/Kaiser/Tsar is already taken. How can we trump that?
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
That’s not my claim. I don’t think it’s recently coined. However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
We may be missing a trick. The (percieved) increased use of UK may be simply down to the rise of the internet ".uk" suffix. For example, here is the BBC Politics 97 site from 1997, before the GFA https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
That’s not my claim. I don’t think it’s recently coined. However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
But I’d kinda want to see some Hansard evidence.
GBNI is a place, UK is a system of government.
More of a declaration of the limits of a system of government rather than the system itself?
The “system” is a monarchy - the UK refers to application of a combined system to “GB and NI”
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
We may be missing a trick. The (percieved) increased use of UK may be simply down to the rise of the internet ".uk" suffix. For example, here is the BBC Politics 97 site from 1997, before the GFA https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
Royaume Uni nul points!
It's been going a long time, though we are far from uni.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
This is not remotely true.
Which part is not remotely true? The Irish Sea? Boris?
The UK government is simultaneously using "UKaid" as its branding for international aid and "Britain is Great" as its branding for trade, and has been using both for at least a decade.
There's no change. What is up with people inventing conspiracy theories over an imagined change? People haver lost their minds.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
That’s not my claim. I don’t think it’s recently coined. However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
The increased use, not use.
There's no evidence of increased use of United Kingdom over Great Britain
I suspect an analysis of the BBC's output would show a different picture. This story is typical:
We may be missing a trick. The (percieved) increased use of UK may be simply down to the rise of the internet ".uk" suffix. For example, here is the BBC Politics 97 site from 1997, before the GFA https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/special/politics97/
I did wonder whether there might be a slight effect from web-based drop-down menus for selecting country, where almost all websites will use the ISO standard list which includes United Kingdom. But it certainly wouldn't be a conspiracy against use of Great Britain, and would have been pretty unintentional.
The UK government is simultaneously using "UKaid" as its branding for international aid and "Britain is Great" as its branding for trade, and has been using both for at least a decade.
There's no change. What is up with people inventing conspiracy theories over an imagined change? People haver lost their minds.
My wife says it's Covid and Santa.
For example, the change from GB stickers on cars to UK stickers. Not actually required by brexit, but part of an agenda to include NI.
Former PB contributor @SeanT has just caught on that Zulu is a class-based critique of the class structure in the British army. Next week, he'll write an article about how Rosebud is the sled (yes I know about the Marion Davis clitoris theory). Piercing insight, our lad.
One of the saddest things about getting old is how the next generation is excitedly discovering things about the past that were either blisteringly bloody obvious at the time, or totally wrong. Tom Harwood on Twitter is excitedly and neurotically reporting that the abbreviation for the United Kingdom (UK) is a neologism that wasn't really used until the Good Friday agreement, which is just plain wrong. A generation is getting its info from Twitter and Grok instead of books, and they are thick as horseshit.
There is just a smidgeon of truth there. Britain was an official synonym for the UK. Britain, not Great Britain.
‘The UK’ only replaced ‘Britain’ as the usual collective name when Boris shoved it down our collective throats to gaslight the good people of Northern Ireland that he hadn't just sold them out by placing a border down the Irish Sea.
Representatives of the UK have been seated next to reps of the US for as long as I can remember (I'm over 75).
Yes, that is the name of the country. Britain (and hence British) is a synonym for UK, not for Great Britain. However, the recently increased prominence of UK dates from Boris selling out Northern Ireland (possibly because he never understood the issue of the border in the first place).
For instance, your passport probably says British at the top and United Kingdom at the bottom, yet we have only since Brexit changed number plates from GB to UK. In the Olympics I think we are still GB&NI with &NI in very small letters.
I think this is entirely in your head.
And your evidence is... what? Clearly I'm right about the use of Britain and British, clearly I'm right about the Brexit barrier down the Irish Sea which Boris had earlier ruled out, and clearly I'm right about the increased use of UK since Boris's time, so the only part I could be wrong on is Boris's motivation.
the notion that the use of the term UK is anything to do with Johnson, it's been common parlance my entire lifetime
It’s a weird new alt-right trope that it is essentially concurrent with the Boriswave and is an attempt to provide a deracinated name for the country formerly known as “Britain”.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
...but this is kind of the problem. The use of "United Kingdom" as the shortform name of the state has been around since the 1940s at least, but a lot of presumably intelligent people (such as yourself) now believe that it's a post-GFA coinage. This is because people get their info from the internet, and it's not always right. And by the time I do something like request a copy of the CIA factbook from the 1960s to show this, everybody has moved onto the next thing. Aaargh!
That’s not my claim. I don’t think it’s recently coined. However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
The UK government is simultaneously using "UKaid" as its branding for international aid and "Britain is Great" as its branding for trade, and has been using both for at least a decade.
There's no change. What is up with people inventing conspiracy theories over an imagined change? People haver lost their minds.
My wife says it's Covid and Santa.
It’s all down to the Canadians, at the behest of the Lizard Men in People Suits, working for the Zeta Reticulans under the orders of the Grand Council of the Uluminati.
They spend billions on convincing people that water has just become wet.
Not sure why. The Lizard Men just shrug when I ask them.
The UK government is simultaneously using "UKaid" as its branding for international aid and "Britain is Great" as its branding for trade, and has been using both for at least a decade.
There's no change. What is up with people inventing conspiracy theories over an imagined change? People haver lost their minds.
My wife says it's Covid and Santa.
I suppose "Kingdom is United" wouldn't work so well as a trade branding. Not least because it isn't.
Comments
According to Google AI the average *household* pays £571k in income tax over their lifetime.
Assuming that’s typically 2 adults that means that they are basically getting it all back in pension income
https://x.com/tousitvofficial/status/2006443475575910452
Volunteer at a museum. Pick up litter. Help out on a school trip. Organise a biggest turnip competition. Put something back into your community.
She didn’t do anything particularly wrong though
before 1801: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain
1801-1922: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Ireland
1922-present: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland
It's probably the case that most of us have got the capacity to do an hour a week of something constructive that would make our communities nicer. Consider the time some people were willing to put into zip-tying flags to lamposts in the summer.
It's probably the case that most of us would feel better as people for doing that. Part of the thing we're groping unsucessfully for is meaning. Most of us have a fair bit of bullshit in our jobs, and there doesn't feel like an obvious national mission to direct us. Again, the flegs are a symptom of that, I reckon.
But the barrier between where we are and where it would be better for us to be- both as individuals and as a nation- looks pretty hard to cross.
* the UK are Team GB, and everybody in NI who identifies as British can play on that team.
* Eire are Team IRE (sic), and everybody in NI who identifies as Irish can play on that team.
Of course, a bloody hard sell on the latter but we all rely on them to make our society a pleasant and safe place to live.
And don't get me started on "Moonraker"
China’s president, Xi Jinping, has vowed to reunify China and Taiwan in his annual New Year’s Eve speech in Beijing.
Ultimately, it's about mindset- how do we collectively get from the selfishness that comes from a feeling of scarcity to the generosity that comes from a feeling of abundance? It's the thing Maggie hoped for that didn't happen, and if she couldn't do it, flip knows who can.
It also seems unlikely that whatever replaces it will be noticeably better.
However, it would be a further significant blow to Putin if it happens in the next few months.
Make sure your computers are up to date and that you are not overexposed on tech stocks including AI.
My controversial take is that could be a very good idea, as I think it is a film that had loads of potential but was only goofily entertaining and actually quite shit when you take off the nostalgia goggles. Though the terribleness of the various sequels is hilarious.
It will probably be a bad remake though.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebrity_Big_Brother_(British_series_5)_racism_controversy
Or the head of UKIP/ Brexit/ Reform in Wales who took a bribe of peanuts to promote Russian interests in order to destabilise European support for continued Ukrainian independence. The evidence here speaks for itself.
That’s why I would link it to an increase in the pension to say, 20 hours per week minimum wage and then ask people to work for less than that. And allow them to choose who they want to work for.
I don't really understand it, although it’s true that early in the 20th century, the shorthand “England” became “Great Britain” and perhaps much later, “Great Britain” seems to have become “United Kingdom”.
I feel like Thatcher used Britain more, but Blair may have heralded the move to United Kingdom? The latter is technically more correct and is maybe therefore suspiciously technocratic as opposed to the virile connotations of Great Britain.
It now looks very outdated, and it’s actually quite dull except for the famous scene where they break into the Pentagon and the Eurostar scene, which remains breathtaking.
Tonight there are apparently two “ball drops”, the second with red, white and blue to mark the 250th anniversary of America’s founding.
2026 is gonna be a big year.
Some historians pick 1976 as the year America started to rise again after its Vietnam-y, Nixon-ish, stagflation-ridden early 70s nadir.
(Disclaimer: I fly to Taipei in a week).
I don’t think it’s recently coined.
However I suspect (but don’t know) that it’s replaced “Britain” in political discourse.
But I’d kinda want to see some Hansard evidence.
But not by choice.
I maintain this to be the case, and will do so even after any sequel or remake.
I didn't take a plastic sword though, which was a bit poor.
* Arrow Route, VDiff***
https://www.ukclimbing.com/logbook/crags/sron_na_ciche-780/arrow_route-7739#photos
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cy594gkele3o
But Caesar/Kaiser/Tsar is already taken. How can we trump that?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8435944.stm
The “system” is a monarchy - the UK refers to application of a combined system to “GB and NI”
It's been going a long time, though we are far from uni.
There's no change. What is up with people inventing conspiracy theories over an imagined change? People haver lost their minds.
My wife says it's Covid and Santa.
@DecrepiterJohnL , your claim is just entirely unrelated to reality.
286739 mentions since 01/01/1800. Peaks were at 1980, 1997, 2020
https://hansard.parliament.uk/search?endDate=2025-12-31&partial=False&searchTerm="Great Britain"&sortOrder=1&startDate=1800-01-01
75675 mentions since 01/01/1800. Peaks were at 1912, 1927,
Happy New Year.
They spend billions on convincing people that water has just become wet.
Not sure why. The Lizard Men just shrug when I ask them.