Mr. Isam, I have vague memories, from years ago, of Mary Beard on Question Time trying to tell a Grimsby resident excessive migration wasn't having a negative impact on Grimsby. The lady to whom she was speaking was not convinced.
Anyone who claims that excess immigration is not a problem really needs to do an Orwell and go and live in Grimsby in social housing for a year, and with so little money that if the NHS grinds to a halt and they happen to be ill, they die (not claim on their employer's health policy, not ring their stockbroker and sell some shares to pay to go private, not remortgage the house, just die). Even that wouldn't work, for Pulp "Common People" reasons, but it would be a start.
'Common People' describes the situation better than anything else I've come across.
Time to replace the hated BTL stamp duty tax with a much fairer Land Value Tax.
It would make sense to roll in council tax while we're at it, too.
Start at 5%, perhaps, and then once asset bubble has popped we can reassess. We could even hand over responsibility for setting the rate to the BoE.
The right should embrace property taxes.
They are the future.
5% of what exactly? Of the value of the property? Of the land per se it sits on? Who values it? What's the appeals process How doe it work for flats? What about the 90 year old widow who's lived in a house for 50 years now worth a million quid because it was in a crap bit of town that's now trendy - any discount?
She has no right to that house. Millennials have a stronger claim on it. It should simply be confiscated.
A 5% tax would mean your house was taken from you by the state every 20 years.
Lol!
But seriously, whilst I have a lot of sympathy with Pong's "asset bubble" vis a vis property issue and an adjustment in real prices would be beneficial all round, if not done so violently it crashes everything anyway (remember the 70's when 10 - 20% inflation did the real price adjusting without doing anything to nominal prices! Not that 15% inflation doesn't stuff other things up of course), I really wish the advocates of LVT would be a bit more specific as to what exactly is to be taxed and is it additional to existing taxes or are other taxes being brought down to compensate?
There's a hell of a difference between say 5% on property value in addition to all existing taxes with no reductions elsewhere - so £8.75K on a £175K house ie cough up £729 per month (!!!) "Mr and Mrs Average Homeowner", (or £50K per year for my widow example) or say 1% on a notional "empty field value", (but even then what about flats?) and a reduction in NI/Income tax/VAT or whatever of x% to indirectly compensate.
Otherwise it just comes over as the politics of envy. If I've come from nothing, saved my pennies for decades and lived frugally, aside from investing in a nice house, am I to be fiscally "done over" compared to if I had spent it all on booze and horses and saved nothing?
Time to replace the hated BTL stamp duty tax with a much fairer Land Value Tax.
It would make sense to roll in council tax while we're at it, too.
Start at 5%, perhaps, and then once asset bubble has popped we can reassess. We could even hand over the responsibility for setting the rate to the BoE.
The right should embrace property taxes.
They are the future.
The trouble with Land value Tax is that the value of the land depends on what stands on it. So you end up with a property tax after all.
I think the idea is for the "unimproved" value of the land to be the tax basis.
Yes but remember to save your bus fare home. On all known form, the boxer wins but he has not been in the ring for two years. But as expected, the money is starting to come back for Mayweather, and mine is included in that, and it is now generally 1/4 vs 7/2 (4/1 in a place).
Best to get on Mayweather now, before the big money buyer rush.
Don't want to sound like G Boycott, but "Lay the honky" is a good rule of thumb in these situations.
IANAE but if the Irish chappy were a half-decent boxer would he not have made his money there in the first place?
Mayweather has won all his fights by punching people and in this one that's all they are allowed to do. It seems likely that even if the other feller succeeds in punching him once or twice he'll have been punched a lot harder before and won't much care. It seems unlikely that the reverse is true, i.e. that the beard has ever been punched as hard as Mayweather will punch him.
It feels less like a sports bet and more like a politics bet. Mayweather could trip and injure himself in the ring I guess or McGregor takes a dive after the bell goes in a round to get Mayweather DQed. But these are reasons for having the fight at 1-20/20-1 rather than the 1-1000 if it comes down to pure boxing ability.
Don’t say that, the last time I had a big 1/4 bet on politics it backfired spectacularly!
Time to replace the hated BTL stamp duty tax with a much fairer Land Value Tax.
It would make sense to roll in council tax while we're at it, too.
Start at 5%, perhaps, and then once asset bubble has popped we can reassess. We could even hand over responsibility for setting the rate to the BoE.
The right should embrace property taxes.
They are the future.
5% of what exactly? Of the value of the property? Of the land per se it sits on? Who values it? What's the appeals process How doe it work for flats? What about the 90 year old widow who's lived in a house for 50 years now worth a million quid because it was in a crap bit of town that's now trendy - any discount?
She has no right to that house. Millennials have a stronger claim on it. It should simply be confiscated.
A 5% tax would mean your house was taken from you by the state every 20 years.
She may well be granny to some Millennials whose mummy and daddy will receive part or all of it when she dies and will eventually inherit its value in turn anyway
Yes but remember to save your bus fare home. On all known form, the boxer wins but he has not been in the ring for two years. But as expected, the money is starting to come back for Mayweather, and mine is included in that, and it is now generally 1/4 vs 7/2 (4/1 in a place).
Best to get on Mayweather now, before the big money buyer rush.
Don't want to sound like G Boycott, but "Lay the honky" is a good rule of thumb in these situations.
IANAE but if the Irish chappy were a half-decent boxer would he not have made his money there in the first place?
Mayweather has won all his fights by punching people and in this one that's all they are allowed to do. It seems likely that even if the other feller succeeds in punching him once or twice he'll have been punched a lot harder before and won't much care. It seems unlikely that the reverse is true, i.e. that the beard has ever been punched as hard as Mayweather will punch him.
It feels less like a sports bet and more like a politics bet. Mayweather could trip and injure himself in the ring I guess or McGregor takes a dive after the bell goes in a round to get Mayweather DQed. But these are reasons for having the fight at 1-20/20-1 rather than the 1-1000 if it comes down to pure boxing ability.
Don’t say that, the last time I had a big 1/4 bet on politics it backfired spectacularly!
Don't worry, its not Theresa May heading into the ring.
Today we learn that May cited student immigration numbers she knew were highly questionable. Yesterday, we learned that when she was home secretary her department suppressed a report about the risks to the fight sgsinst terrorism leaving the EU might cause. We've known May is an utter incompetent for a while. Now it turns out she combines that with malevolence. What a deeply unpleasant politician she is.
Today we learn that May cited student immigration numbers she knew were highly questionable. Yesterday, we learned that when she was home secretary her department suppressed a report about the risks to the fight sgsinst terrorism leaving the EU might cause. We've known May is an utter incompetent for a while. Now it turns out she combines that with malevolence. What a deeply unpleasant politician she is.
Today we learn that May cited student immigration numbers she knew were highly questionable. Yesterday, we learned that when she was home secretary her department suppressed a report about the risks to the fight sgsinst terrorism leaving the EU might cause. We've known May is an utter incompetent for a while. Now it turns out she combines that with malevolence. What a deeply unpleasant politician she is.
Today we learn that May cited student immigration numbers she knew were highly questionable. Yesterday, we learned that when she was home secretary her department suppressed a report about the risks to the fight sgsinst terrorism leaving the EU might cause. We've known May is an utter incompetent for a while. Now it turns out she combines that with malevolence. What a deeply unpleasant politician she is.
You are talking utter garbage there, I am afraid, and very unpleasant garbage at that. It is most unbecoming of you to accuse Theresa May of 'malevolence'. In particular:
- Why on earth do you assume that Theresa May knew that the official migration figures might not be right? It is the ONS, not the Home Office, which produces those figures. How would you react if a politician rubbished the ONS figures?
- In any case the accusation is utterly barmy. It was in the interests of the government to claim they were making progress in reducing numbers. Why on earth would she have knowingly and unfairly accused herself of failure to do so?
- Her department did not 'suppress' the report on security. They didn't publish it, which is not the same thing, but it was widely reported at the time that one of the principal reasons why Theresa May came out on the Remain side was precisely because of concerns over security if we left. Indeed she devoted a long section of her April 2016 speech on Brexit to explain the point:
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
I think you are taking your anger over the Leave vote, undoubtedly won because of the immigration issue and focusing it all on May who whatever her subsequent position let us not forget backed Remain
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
'Malevolent'? Grow up.
This lack of respect for those in public service saddens me. Why can't you just disagree with politics that isn't your own?
Today we learn that May cited student immigration numbers she knew were highly questionable. Yesterday, we learned that when she was home secretary her department suppressed a report about the risks to the fight sgsinst terrorism leaving the EU might cause. We've known May is an utter incompetent for a while. Now it turns out she combines that with malevolence. What a deeply unpleasant politician she is.
I am not a fan of Theresa May but AIUI the government wanted to put out a report concluding that leaving the EU would have an adverse effect on our security and she stopped it for the very good reason it was complete nonsense.
Once we have the outcome of the current studies we will have much more information about the effects of students on migration but even today the BBC are reporting:
"The difference - which averaged about 110,000 a year between 2012 and 2015 - fuelled questions over whether students were remaining in the country beyond the end of their courses.
Long-term immigration of students to the UK was approximately 136,000 last year, with an estimated 63,000 emigrating to the country having originally gone there to study. " http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41030304
If that information is correct then Mrs May is clearly correct to include students in the figures and was using the information available. It also suggests that our immigrants may well be much better educated than average.
There are so many things she can be criticised for, there is no need to make them up.
Time to replace the hated BTL stamp duty tax with a much fairer Land Value Tax.
It would make sense to roll in council tax while we're at it, too.
Start at 5%, perhaps, and then once asset bubble has popped we can reassess. We could even hand over the responsibility for setting the rate to the BoE.
The right should embrace property taxes.
They are the future.
The trouble with Land value Tax is that the value of the land depends on what stands on it. So you end up with a property tax after all.
I think the idea is for the "unimproved" value of the land to be the tax basis.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
I think you are taking your anger over the Leave vote, undoubtedly won because of the immigration issue and focusing it all on May who whatever her subsequent position let us not forget backed Remain
You think wrong. May has a long history of pandering to the right wing press. And it has served the country poorly, while getting her the job she eanted but was totally ill-equipped to do.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
I think you are taking your anger over the Leave vote, undoubtedly won because of the immigration issue and focusing it all on May who whatever her subsequent position let us not forget backed Remain
You think wrong. May has a long history of pandering to the right wing press. And it has served the country poorly, while getting her the job she eanted but was totally ill-equipped to do.
The right-wing press may well have backed Leadsom had it gone to the membership
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
She'd be the first politician ever to claim failure in order to get great headlines!
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press. If that leads to bad policy, ruined lives, greater threats to the UK, so be it. As I say, she is malevolent. And nowhere near good enough to get away with it.
'Malevolent'? Grow up.
This lack of respect for those in public service saddens me. Why can't you just disagree with politics that isn't your own?
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
She'd be the first politician ever to claim failure in order to get great headlines!
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
It truly is. Her attempts to control immigration all failed and caused her no end of bad publicity and criticism. She could have massaged the figures by excluding students. If the quote from the BBC is correct that would itself have hidden a substantial number of immigrants and made her look better. But she didn't.
I was at a dinner party a couple of months ago and one of those there used to work very closely with May in the Home Office. His politics were way to the left of hers, way to the left of mine, but he was adamant that her personal integrity and desire for the truth was remarkable. She has poor judgment and a remarkably poor skill set for her current post but I see no reason not to accept that assessment by someone in a much better place to make it than me.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
Remember it's the Leave votes you despise, not the Leave voters.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
It truly is. Her attempts to control immigration all failed and caused her no end of bad publicity and criticism. She could have massaged the figures by excluding students. If the quote from the BBC is correct that would itself have hidden a substantial number of immigrants and made her look better. But she didn't.
I was at a dinner party a couple of months ago and one of those there used to work very closely with May in the Home Office. His politics were way to the left of hers, way to the left of mine, but he was adamant that her personal integrity and desire for the truth was remarkable. She has poor judgment and a remarkably poor skill set for her current post but I see no reason not to accept that assessment by someone in a much better place to make it than me.
She's not up to it, but the only evidence for "malevolence" is the assumption that centre-right politicians are malovelent.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
This must be getting on for a world record.
Has any other tantrum lasted longer than 14 months before?
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
It's more like fighting the Martians.
Nasty business that can be.
He heard footsteps running to and fro in the rooms, and up and down stairs behind him. His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Except I didn't....
How long can we expect this hostility to continue?
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
This must be getting on for a world record.
Has any other tantrum lasted longer than 14 months before?
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
She'd be the first politician ever to claim failure in order to get great headlines!
She's not very good, is she?
In the way that Tony Blair was very good?
Ultimately that conclusion usually has to be drawn some years after she departs from office. Until then we don't have all the required information.
However, early indications are she isn't good at elections, emoting and communication. The rest remains to be seen.
Ah, Richard North and the Leave Alliance. It is tragic that somebody with the best analytical understanding of the EU and its history cannot work with others, massively diminishing the impact of his work.
I think he also forgets that Brexit is a revolution, and in revolutions the eventual end result is almost never visible or very predictable at the outset. Throwing a tantrum because you don't get precisely what you want shows a great deal of naivety.
Sadly, Sean O'Callaghan has died in an accident in a swimming pool,
Died in a swimming pool accident, do we need to get the tin foil hats on? As I seemed to remember he has lived the past 15+ year having to bounce from safe house to safe house.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
This must be getting on for a world record.
Has any other tantrum lasted longer than 14 months before?
Ted Heath's after Thatcher beat him?
That was officially a 'sulk' rather than a tantrum.
Arguably Trump has been in a tantrum since the day the press reported his low inauguration crowd figures.
The only thing she is interested in is positive coverage in the right wing press.
Yes, and so she massaged up the net immigration figures to get it.
Err...
She took numbers she knew were highly questionable to launch a crackdown on a problem that did not exist in order to get great headlines in the right wing press. She's been doing it for years.
That is absolutely bonkers.
It truly is. Her attempts to control immigration all failed and caused her no end of bad publicity and criticism. She could have massaged the figures by excluding students. If the quote from the BBC is correct that would itself have hidden a substantial number of immigrants and made her look better. But she didn't.
I was at a dinner party a couple of months ago and one of those there used to work very closely with May in the Home Office. His politics were way to the left of hers, way to the left of mine, but he was adamant that her personal integrity and desire for the truth was remarkable. She has poor judgment and a remarkably poor skill set for her current post but I see no reason not to accept that assessment by someone in a much better place to make it than me.
She's not up to it, but the only evidence for "malevolence" is the assumption that centre-right politicians are malovelent.
Nope - May very specifically has displayed a consistent pattern of prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press over all other considerations. Many other centre right politicians do not do this. I disagree with them but do not doubt their integrity or the sincerity of their beliefs.
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
Sure. It seems that way to me as well. But again, the motivation for her personally was to be seen to be winning the battle of getting immigration numbers down, in the same way as she made a big deal over getting rid of a couple of jahadi's.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
This must be getting on for a world record.
Has any other tantrum lasted longer than 14 months before?
Ted Heath's after Thatcher beat him?
Oh God you're right, we could have years of this nonsense left.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Except I didn't....
How long can we expect this hostility to continue?
For as long as you can nonchalantly draw parallels between the opponent Britain had in the Second World War and Brexit. The idea that Britain and British people are not free now is not just wrong but offensive and indicates a worldview that is sufficiently perverted as to require dismantling.
Time to replace the hated BTL stamp duty tax with a much fairer Land Value Tax.
It would make sense to roll in council tax while we're at it, too.
Start at 5%, perhaps, and then once asset bubble has popped we can reassess. We could even hand over the responsibility for setting the rate to the BoE.
The right should embrace property taxes.
They are the future.
The trouble with Land value Tax is that the value of the land depends on what stands on it. So you end up with a property tax after all.
I think the idea is for the "unimproved" value of the land to be the tax basis.
Without a use land has no value.
If it has potential uses then it has value.
Something's worth what someone else is willing to pay for it now.
How do you value potential though? Manhattan was worth diddly squat for millennia, so I doubt the local Algonquin in circa 1550 would've taken kindly to being told it was going to have unfathomable wealth years after they were dead - so pay up now.
The rates at least had some link to "notional rental value" I think, ie value (if however contorted) if the asset were used in the here and now, but differently.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Except I didn't....
How long can we expect this hostility to continue?
For as long as you can nonchalantly draw parallels between the opponent Britain had in the Second World War and Brexit. The idea that Britain and British people are not free now is not just wrong but offensive and indicates a worldview that is sufficiently perverted as to require dismantling.
That's great news. So your hostility is over, given I didn't draw parallels between an enemy and the EU?
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
What Dunkirk didn't do was show how big a role the French played in ensuring the evacuation was successful.
Yes it was a shame that wasn't highlighted after the barricade moment.
But what a film. Best war film I've ever seen. And I'm quite a fan of them!
I am not sure how it will come across on TV. But in a cinema with surround sound the whole audience was jumping about. It seemed incredibly real and truly frightening.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Tell me about this "freedom" and the threats thereto that Dunkirk was referencing, and the slightest relevance that has to leaving the EU.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
You made a rush to judgement, and it was wrong. It doesn't surprise me, given your touchiness on the Brexit subject.
Except I've got you bang to rights. Equating fighting against Nazism to leaving the EU is about the most demented idea that you've ever come up with, and that's saying something.
Except I didn't....
How long can we expect this hostility to continue?
For as long as you can nonchalantly draw parallels between the opponent Britain had in the Second World War and Brexit. The idea that Britain and British people are not free now is not just wrong but offensive and indicates a worldview that is sufficiently perverted as to require dismantling.
That's great news. So your hostility is over, given I didn't draw parallels between an enemy and the EU?
The Brexit crystal meth has terminally addled your brain since you have now degraded to the point where you can't read your own posts.
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
Britain has freedom in the EU. That you're unhinged enough to believe otherwise is your problem, not Remainers'.
These tantrum posts are getting quite tedious now.
Stop posting nonsense and I'll stop ridiculing you for it.
That you feel the need to ridicule anyone says a lot more about you then you seem to realise.
Comparing the EU with Nazi Germany is incredibly offensive. Idiots who do it deserve to be called out on it.
You assume anyone you disagree with is doing that? Dunkirk showed a proud nation that doesn't give up. And better, we persevere politely.
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
What Dunkirk didn't do was show how big a role the French played in ensuring the evacuation was successful.
Yes it was a shame that wasn't highlighted after the barricade moment.
But what a film. Best war film I've ever seen. And I'm quite a fan of them!
I am not sure how it will come across on TV. But in a cinema with surround sound the whole audience was jumping about. It seemed incredibly real and truly frightening.
Yep, good point. The base was immense. Then when it cut to silence for a second or two at the end. Wow.
Nope - May very specifically has displayed a consistent pattern of prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press over all other considerations. ...
For heaven's sake, what blinkers have you been wearing for the last seven years? Clearly they are an advanced model, which filters out anything inconvenient to your preconception.
Was her stance on stop and search prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press? Or her very strong position on modern slavery? Or her 2014 rocket up the backsides of the Police Federation? Or her switch from ASBOs to a 'less punitive, community-based approach to tackling social disorder'?
And those are just examples from when she was Home Sec. As PM, there are plenty of other examples of policies which are not to the taste of the 'right wing press'.
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
Sure. It seems that way to me as well. But again, the motivation for her personally was to be seen to be winning the battle of getting immigration numbers down, in the same way as she made a big deal over getting rid of a couple of jahadi's.
Her motivation was to be seen to be doing something the right wing press approved. It's a very specific pattern in her career post-2010. Immigration crackdowns, taking on the police unions, fighting with the ECHR, dealing with the Brexit saboteurs, and so on.
Nope - May very specifically has displayed a consistent pattern of prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press over all other considerations. ...
For heaven's sake, what blinkers have you been wearing for the last seven years? Clearly they are an advanced model, which filters out anything inconvenient to your preconception.
Was her stance on stop and search prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press? Or her very strong position on modern slavery? Or her 2014 rocket up the backsides of the Police Federation? Or her switch from ASBOs to a 'less punitive, community-based approach to tackling social disorder'?
And that's just examples from when she was Home Sec. As PM, there are plenty of other examples of policies which are not to the taste of the 'right wing press'.
Is the right wing press in favour of modern slavery?
"Taking on" the Police Federation - the trade union of police vested interests - was straight out of the Daily Mail playbook.
Is the right wing press in favour of modern slavery?
It's a policy she has pursued because she is passionate about it. The right-wing press is uninterested in it. So it's a good example of you being wrong.
Your mistake is that you selectively see some of her policies which you don't like, and assume - with zero justification - that her motives in pursuing them are base, rather than genuine. That is unworthy of you. Perhaps (like many people) she genuinely believes that immigration was too high, or that some of the ECHR rulings were bonkers. Some of those views may happen to be shared by the Mail, but that doesn't mean that she's cynically pursuing good headlines in the Mail. I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't claim that than Yvette Cooper prioritising concerns about child refugees is a cynical bid for good headlines in the Guardian.
Is the right wing press in favour of modern slavery?
It's a policy she has pursued because she is passionate about it. The right-wing press is uninterested in it. So it's a good example of you being wrong.
Your mistake is that you selectively see some of her policies which you don't like, and assume - with zero justification - that her motives in pursuing them are base, rather than genuine. That is unworthy of you. Perhaps (like many people) she genuinely believes that immigration was too high, or that some of the ECHR rulings were bonkers. Some of those views may happen to be shared by the Mail, but that doesn't mean that she's cynically pursuing good headlines in the Mail. I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't claim that than Yvette Cooper prioritising concerns about child refugees is a cynical bid for good headlines in the Guardian.
Even I am not jaundiced enough to believe being opposed to modern slavery would get May negative headlines in the right wing press. Many, many people have suggested that "virtue signalling" is precisely what Cooper was engaging in. I agree that she wasn't.
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
Sure. It seems that way to me as well. But again, the motivation for her personally was to be seen to be winning the battle of getting immigration numbers down, in the same way as she made a big deal over getting rid of a couple of jahadi's.
Her motivation was to be seen to be doing something the right wing press approved. It's a very specific pattern in her career post-2010. Immigration crackdowns, taking on the police unions, fighting with the ECHR, dealing with the Brexit saboteurs, and so on.
If that really was the case, she wouldn't have done the stupidity over social care during the election.
The facts fit your case, apart from when they don't.
Ms. Aforethought, might vary a bit as F1's fuel is a little more exotic (I think) than the stuff you get in the petrol stations. But the basic principle would be sound.
Smaller weight and fuel tank means smaller cars and better handling as well as a smaller fuel effect (lap time gained per lap due to diminished weight from fuel consumed).
The more serious leavers are beside themselves witnessing the government's performance....
William, I hate to break this to you, but that is Richard North. There is no known universe in which Richard North is one of the more serious leavers.
In a spectrum containing IDS (fool), Farage (knave) and Hannan (charlatan) he qualifies as one of the more serious Leavers.
At least he understands that Northern Ireland has to be treated as a separate issue...
The Ireland issue is only solved by the EU playing ball with a customs union transition and then either a soft customs border (technology and regulatory) or a FTA. The lattter is far more likely, given that the EU sells us more stuff than we sell them. If the EU were to begin understanding this, rather than pretending NI is a separate issue, it would be very helpful.
Ms. Aforethought, might vary a bit as F1's fuel is a little more exotic (I think) than the stuff you get in the petrol stations. But the basic principle would be sound.
Smaller weight and fuel tank means smaller cars and better handling as well as a smaller fuel effect (lap time gained per lap due to diminished weight from fuel consumed).
I was thinking more that if the same performance can be achieved from an F1 type engine while achieving the fuel economy then the car would run with less fuel to begin with. 73kg rather than 100 for example.
So all other things being equal, in a 200-lap race its time would 200x the 100th lap time, whereas with this engine it would be 200x the 73rd lap time. No?
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
Sure. It seems that way to me as well. But again, the motivation for her personally was to be seen to be winning the battle of getting immigration numbers down, in the same way as she made a big deal over getting rid of a couple of jahadi's.
Her motivation was to be seen to be doing something the right wing press approved. It's a very specific pattern in her career post-2010. Immigration crackdowns, taking on the police unions, fighting with the ECHR, dealing with the Brexit saboteurs, and so on.
If that really was the case, she wouldn't have done the stupidity over social care during the election.
The facts fit your case, apart from when they don't.
She had no idea the Dementia Tax would be covered in the way it was. As I said, she's not very good.
Ms. Aforethought, on fuel weight, that sort of thing would be the case.
On race times (assuming no red flags) there's a time limit of two hours, four hours total with red flags (the authorities saw arguably the greatest modern race [Canada 2011] which lasted over four hours and decided the rules must be changed to ensure it never happened again).
If race times were too short they'd alter regulations, either slapping on a greater length or slowing the cars some other way.
I have a lot of time for SO and I am not fan of May, but I am struggling to follow this logic.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
The general consensus on May as home secretary seems to have been she operated to her own rules as much as possible and was certainly not a team player.
Sure. It seems that way to me as well. But again, the motivation for her personally was to be seen to be winning the battle of getting immigration numbers down, in the same way as she made a big deal over getting rid of a couple of jahadi's.
Her motivation was to be seen to be doing something the right wing press approved. It's a very specific pattern in her career post-2010. Immigration crackdowns, taking on the police unions, fighting with the ECHR, dealing with the Brexit saboteurs, and so on.
If that really was the case, she wouldn't have done the stupidity over social care during the election.
The facts fit your case, apart from when they don't.
She had no idea the Dementia Tax would be covered in the way it was. As I said, she's not very good.
Now to the swimming pool!
After dipping your toe into political squabbling on social media for what must be the first time in a fortnight or so I'd imagine!
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Ms. Aforethought, might vary a bit as F1's fuel is a little more exotic (I think) than the stuff you get in the petrol stations. But the basic principle would be sound.
Smaller weight and fuel tank means smaller cars and better handling as well as a smaller fuel effect (lap time gained per lap due to diminished weight from fuel consumed).
I was thinking more that if the same performance can be achieved from an F1 type engine while achieving the fuel economy then the car would run with less fuel to begin with. 73kg rather than 100 for example.
So all other things being equal, in a 200-lap race its time would 200x the 100th lap time, whereas with this engine it would be 200x the 73rd lap time. No?
F1 is already using similar sorts of technology, their petrol engines are something like 40% more efficient than the old noisy ones from 2013. The current F1 cars are only allowed 105kg of fuel (around 120 litres) to cover around 200 miles of the race.
I’m in favour of loosening the rules on engines in exchange for a fuel limit, ie you’ve 100kg of fuel, make the engine however you want. Next year, you’ve got 97kg etc.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Yeah you're right, there's no pattern here or reason at all to be worried.
I'm wondering when the political class is going to start getting angry about this sort of thing rather than just staring at their shoes mouthing platitudes.
My guess is never.
Maybe we should have a separate thread, or even website, for people to post examples of crimes committed by criminals.
Comments
But seriously, whilst I have a lot of sympathy with Pong's "asset bubble" vis a vis property issue and an adjustment in real prices would be beneficial all round, if not done so violently it crashes everything anyway (remember the 70's when 10 - 20% inflation did the real price adjusting without doing anything to nominal prices! Not that 15% inflation doesn't stuff other things up of course), I really wish the advocates of LVT would be a bit more specific as to what exactly is to be taxed and is it additional to existing taxes or are other taxes being brought down to compensate?
There's a hell of a difference between say 5% on property value in addition to all existing taxes with no reductions elsewhere - so £8.75K on a £175K house ie cough up £729 per month (!!!) "Mr and Mrs Average Homeowner", (or £50K per year for my widow example) or say 1% on a notional "empty field value", (but even then what about flats?) and a reduction in NI/Income tax/VAT or whatever of x% to indirectly compensate.
Otherwise it just comes over as the politics of envy. If I've come from nothing, saved my pennies for decades and lived frugally, aside from investing in a nice house, am I to be fiscally "done over" compared to if I had spent it all on booze and horses and saved nothing?
https://twitter.com/jdportes/status/900644616080429057
https://twitter.com/SimonFRCox/status/859799583249108992
Convinced me that Remainers haven't got a hope. We're too proud of our freedom and its heritage to do a reverse ferret.
- Why on earth do you assume that Theresa May knew that the official migration figures might not be right? It is the ONS, not the Home Office, which produces those figures. How would you react if a politician rubbished the ONS figures?
- In any case the accusation is utterly barmy. It was in the interests of the government to claim they were making progress in reducing numbers. Why on earth would she have knowingly and unfairly accused herself of failure to do so?
- Her department did not 'suppress' the report on security. They didn't publish it, which is not the same thing, but it was widely reported at the time that one of the principal reasons why Theresa May came out on the Remain side was precisely because of concerns over security if we left. Indeed she devoted a long section of her April 2016 speech on Brexit to explain the point:
https://www.conservativehome.com/parliament/2016/04/theresa-mays-speech-on-brexit-full-text.html
She may not be the most accomplished of politicians, but Mrs May is undoubtedly a decent woman.
Err...
This lack of respect for those in public service saddens me. Why can't you just disagree with politics that isn't your own?
Once we have the outcome of the current studies we will have much more information about the effects of students on migration but even today the BBC are reporting:
"The difference - which averaged about 110,000 a year between 2012 and 2015 - fuelled questions over whether students were remaining in the country beyond the end of their courses.
Long-term immigration of students to the UK was approximately 136,000 last year, with an estimated 63,000 emigrating to the country having originally gone there to study. "
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-41030304
If that information is correct then Mrs May is clearly correct to include students in the figures and was using the information available. It also suggests that our immigrants may well be much better educated than average.
There are so many things she can be criticised for, there is no need to make them up.
The government at the time made a big play that they would get immigration down to 100k, they failed miserably to hit that target, and now SO claims that May deliberately went along with figures that made immigration seems a lot higher than it is*...thus causing the government a lot of trouble for failing to hit their target....when all the incentive was to do the opposite i.e. find every way possible to be able to claim immigration appears lower.
* and don't the ONS deal with all these figures, not home office?
"We must aim at nothing less than the union of Europe as a whole, and we look forward with confidence to the day when that union will be achieved."
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/WSCHague.html
She'd be the first politician ever to claim failure in order to get great headlines!
https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/900698329251762177
https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/900699092367659008
https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/900700153702739969
https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/900700478169899008
https://twitter.com/LeaveHQ/status/900700786723827712
A lesson that many Remainers would do well to remind themselves of.
Brexit seems worse than crystal meth for addling the brain of Leavers. Britain is leaving a supranational organisation in which it once participated willingly and constructively - to do what exactly now? Draw little union Jack arrows and whistle "who do you think you are kidding Mr Hitler?"?
I was at a dinner party a couple of months ago and one of those there used to work very closely with May in the Home Office. His politics were way to the left of hers, way to the left of mine, but he was adamant that her personal integrity and desire for the truth was remarkable. She has poor judgment and a remarkably poor skill set for her current post but I see no reason not to accept that assessment by someone in a much better place to make it than me.
https://www.axios.com/where-u-s-troops-are-stationed-around-the-world-2476308580.html
Has any other tantrum lasted longer than 14 months before?
He heard footsteps running to and fro in the rooms, and up and down stairs behind him. His landlady came to the door, loosely wrapped in dressing gown and shawl; her husband followed ejaculating.
How long can we expect this hostility to continue?
Ultimately that conclusion usually has to be drawn some years after she departs from office. Until then we don't have all the required information.
However, early indications are she isn't good at elections, emoting and communication. The rest remains to be seen.
But what a film. Best war film I've ever seen. And I'm quite a fan of them!
I think he also forgets that Brexit is a revolution, and in revolutions the eventual end result is almost never visible or very predictable at the outset. Throwing a tantrum because you don't get precisely what you want shows a great deal of naivety.
Arguably Trump has been in a tantrum since the day the press reported his low inauguration crowd figures.
How do you value potential though? Manhattan was worth diddly squat for millennia, so I doubt the local Algonquin in circa 1550 would've taken kindly to being told it was going to have unfathomable wealth years after they were dead - so pay up now.
The rates at least had some link to "notional rental value" I think, ie value (if however contorted) if the asset were used in the here and now, but differently.
Was her stance on stop and search prioritising positive coverage in the right wing press? Or her very strong position on modern slavery? Or her 2014 rocket up the backsides of the Police Federation? Or her switch from ASBOs to a 'less punitive, community-based approach to tackling social disorder'?
And those are just examples from when she was Home Sec. As PM, there are plenty of other examples of policies which are not to the taste of the 'right wing press'.
"Taking on" the Police Federation - the trade union of police vested interests - was straight out of the Daily Mail playbook.
Your mistake is that you selectively see some of her policies which you don't like, and assume - with zero justification - that her motives in pursuing them are base, rather than genuine. That is unworthy of you. Perhaps (like many people) she genuinely believes that immigration was too high, or that some of the ECHR rulings were bonkers. Some of those views may happen to be shared by the Mail, but that doesn't mean that she's cynically pursuing good headlines in the Mail. I'm pretty certain that you wouldn't claim that than Yvette Cooper prioritising concerns about child refugees is a cynical bid for good headlines in the Guardian.
At least he understands that Northern Ireland has to be treated as a separate issue...
http://jalopnik.com/worlds-first-variable-compression-ratio-engine-could-ki-1785295848
If so this must mean that an F1 car could carry 27% less fuel and still have enough to complete the race, no?
The facts fit your case, apart from when they don't.
Smaller weight and fuel tank means smaller cars and better handling as well as a smaller fuel effect (lap time gained per lap due to diminished weight from fuel consumed).
So all other things being equal, in a 200-lap race its time would 200x the 100th lap time, whereas with this engine it would be 200x the 73rd lap time. No?
Now to the swimming pool!
On race times (assuming no red flags) there's a time limit of two hours, four hours total with red flags (the authorities saw arguably the greatest modern race [Canada 2011] which lasted over four hours and decided the rules must be changed to ensure it never happened again).
If race times were too short they'd alter regulations, either slapping on a greater length or slowing the cars some other way.
My guess is never.
Event of the millennium for cricket fans coming up at 4pm:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/proginfo/2017/34/TMS-60
I’m in favour of loosening the rules on engines in exchange for a fuel limit, ie you’ve 100kg of fuel, make the engine however you want. Next year, you’ve got 97kg etc.
Back to staring at our shoes.