It's not fashionable to talk about the debt or deficit any more, but debt interest payments are still £50bn, aren't they?
That stuff went out of the window with Brexit.
The lack of evidence that high levels of debt do any long-term economic damage as long as the borrowing is in your own currency also helped.
Italy? Japan? High debt is not their only problem but it is hardly a coincidence. My understanding is that once debt exceeds 90% of GDP there is an increasing correlation with low economic growth. This seems hardly surprising. At that point a lot of the tax revenues being generated are simply being recycled in interest payments without any multiplier effects.
My comments from the YouGov age gap earlier and my recent ISPOS posts are more looking to the future (10-20 years) and saying the Tories will have to seriously shift towards the younger voters as the baby boomer generation loses electoral power. With the numbers as they are it looks like it will take more than just becoming more right wing with age. A small age gap can be smoothed out over time with small adjustments but the current one looks a bit more tricky.
Just to note this isn't claiming the Conservatives are doomed or anything silly, just will be a tricky period IMO and there does seem to be a real values shift over a couple of generations that will be awkward to bridge.
More desperate stuff from a Corbyn apologist, hoping against hope that eventually todays young people are still gullible enough to support Mr Thicky or his ideological spawn in 10 years or so. Corbyn's ideas are as bankrupt as he would make the country, and people are beginning to catch up with this. The fact that the numpty is unable to maintain even a paltry lead in the polls against a government as feeble as this one must make moderate Labour supporters, and those of us who believe in the necessity of a strong opposition, weep
Small subset anecdote alert. My other half is a teacher in a rural based not particularly well off school. She regularly does mock elections and discusses values. She did an election with her year 10s the other week. They had to set up a party, some core ideas and they spent a few weeks working through the manifestos (more time than the conservatives seemed to do in 2017). If you think today’s mid teens are soft lefty millennials you might be in for a shock...
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
If you want to work hard, get on, raise a family and play by the rules this Tory Party offers nothing.
If you are an ideological nationalist with a interest in nostalgia, like double breasted jackets, old school ties and funny handshakes then it’s the party for you.
Sorry, but that's UKIP.
Have you seen the Mogg?
The Mogg is Catholic. He won't be doing the "funny handshake"s thing.....
The difference between UKIP and the Tories these days reminds me of the end of Animal Farm when it was no longer possible to tell the pigs apart from the farmers.
To carry the analogy to our current Brexit days, the animals would also see Mr. Corbyn also in there smoking a cigar.
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."
Probably help explains why the warnings of job losses aren't harming the Tories too much.
Indeed. The right is popular among those who don’t work. I suspect you’d find that table also mapped pretty well to Leave support. The generational split is utterly toxic.
There's always been a big generation split, (which data back to 1990 doesn't show very well because that period was an exception). At the October 1974 election, for instance, the Tories came third behind the Liberals with young voters.
The data shows that the Tories move ahead around age 60, which is when most people start to think about retirement, even if like me they carry on indefinitely. Historically people have always got more Tory as they got older, but like The Jezziah I wonder if that's still true. Being anti-Tory has become a cultural thing, like not making jokes about gay people, and while I know plenty of people in my generation who are not enamoured of Labour and are floating around despondently, many of them say they simply won't vote Tory because they view them as culturally alien.
This has to be qualified by the fact that we mostly move in like-minded circles - I don't know any retired bankers or fishermen, to take two random examples. But I do have a fairly ecumenical mix of acquaintances, partly through my past work and partly through working connections.
In 1997 Labour even won pensioners, in 1983 the Tories even won under 25s, the age difference is only really there most evidently in close elections as now
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
Anyone who is quite entrepreneurial is looking at a government that is recklessly playing ducks and drakes with business to pursue as extreme a version of Brexit as it can muster and then running a thousand miles away.
Brexit Tories = “fuck business”
Bang on cue, an article about business leaders being horrified by the Conservatives:
Mr. L, aye. I find it hard to believe blowing £50bn+ a year just on debt interest (almost the total of Education and Defence budgets combined) is not bad for the country.
There's a reason the German word for debt and guilt is the same (Schuld).
It's not fashionable to talk about the debt or deficit any more, but debt interest payments are still £50bn, aren't they?
That stuff went out of the window with Brexit.
As did the Conservative Party's reputation for economic competence, their key USP. They are only ahead in the polls at the moment because the main alternative is even more ludicrous.
Mr. L, aye. I find it hard to believe blowing £50bn+ a year just on debt interest (almost the total of Education and Defence budgets combined) is not bad for the country.
There's a reason the German word for debt and guilt is the same (Schuld).
And it’s only so low because interest rates are so low...
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
If you want to work hard, get on, raise a family and play by the rules this Tory Party offers nothing.
If you are an ideological nationalist with a interest in nostalgia, like double breasted jackets, old school ties and funny handshakes then it’s the party for you.
Working hard and playing by the rules no longer work, the current version of capitalism is flawed and none of the parties have thought how to deal with it.
The nepotism and old school ties that infect Westminster parties actively damage their ability to help others. Few of them know what hard work and playing things straight actually look like. How can they find policies that promote it?
Its why the politcal system needed a shock. It might not fix things but at least it gives us all a chance.
If the Brexit saga proves anything it is that the whole stinking edifice needs to be torn down. I would start by closing Westminster, a building that encourages closed, remote behaviour. We don’t need a Parliament that resembles an Oxford college. It brings out the worst in them. Turn that into a museum.
Absolutely. Why spend 8 billion quid tarting something up that isn't fit for purpose? Spend just enough on a new parliament with a Premier Inn standard hotel on the same site. They could have a decent canteen but no bars. It would save the country a fortune.
Let's just do away with elected politicians altogether and have sortition. Sometimes I almost think a No Deal Brexit could achieve it, but there's still the small difficulty of getting the existing lot to vote themselves out of a job.
No need for a dedicated parliament building in that case, I think.
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
Anyone who is quite entrepreneurial is looking at a government that is recklessly playing ducks and drakes with business to pursue as extreme a version of Brexit as it can muster and then running a thousand miles away.
Brexit Tories = “fuck business”
Bang on cue, an article about business leaders being horrified by the Conservatives:
"The data shows that the Tories move ahead around age 60,"
I think it's conservative with a small 'c', and there's several reasons. One is the attitude to risk-taking. The phrase 'Anything can happen' encapsulates it. To a 20 year-old, that's exciting, to a seventy year-old, it's worrying.
Experience comes into it as well. Old gits (and gittesses) have seen disasters happen when you ignore common sense. If it's new and bright and sparkly, it can look attractive, even if it has a large warning sign.
Evolutionary-wise, there'd ne little point keeping old gits alive past fifty unless they added something. Women become infertile and sperm quality becomes poorer. That something could be experience and caution.
You could make the same point about gay people and that has been discussed previously.
At least this is only peripherally related to Brexit.
The data shows that the Tories move ahead around age 60, which is when most people start to think about retirement, even if like me they carry on indefinitely. Historically people have always got more Tory as they got older, but like The Jezziah I wonder if that's still true. Being anti-Tory has become a cultural thing, like not making jokes about gay people, and while I know plenty of people in my generation who are not enamoured of Labour and are floating around despondently, many of them say they simply won't vote Tory because they view them as culturally alien.
This has to be qualified by the fact that we mostly move in like-minded circles - I don't know any retired bankers or fishermen, to take two random examples. But I do have a fairly ecumenical mix of acquaintances, partly through my past work and partly through working connections.
Let me plug that gap for you Nick. I am not alas a fisherman but I am for my sins a washed up burnt out investment banker.
And l will not be voting Conservative. Not possible for me to do that for medical reasons.
How disgraceful of Jeremy Corbyn to be avoiding £6k tax. Even if the reason was "a blunder by the taxman", that's no excuse. We all know ignorance is no defence.
How many straws can you clutch at to try and avoid the truth? Your party is led by a numpty who is so unelectable and incompetent that he is unable to land a glove, let alone hold a consistent opinion poll lead, on the worst and most divided government in our recent political history. The only thing more absurd than Theresa May and the Brexiteers at the moment is Jeremy Corbyn and his Maduro sympathising cronies. You clearly are not stupid, so please stop apologising for him.
It's evident that we're not capitalising on Tory disarray, and naturally that concerns me. On the other hand, I like Corbyn and think he'd make a good PM. So we're back to the old electability vs attraction issue.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
Anyone who is quite entrepreneurial is looking at a government that is recklessly playing ducks and drakes with business to pursue as extreme a version of Brexit as it can muster and then running a thousand miles away.
Brexit Tories = “fuck business”
Bang on cue, an article about business leaders being horrified by the Conservatives:
The data shows that the Tories move ahead around age 60, which is when most people start to think about retirement, even if like me they carry on indefinitely. Historically people have always got more Tory as they got older, but like The Jezziah I wonder if that's still true. Being anti-Tory has become a cultural thing, like not making jokes about gay people, and while I know plenty of people in my generation who are not enamoured of Labour and are floating around despondently, many of them say they simply won't vote Tory because they view them as culturally alien.
This has to be qualified by the fact that we mostly move in like-minded circles - I don't know any retired bankers or fishermen, to take two random examples. But I do have a fairly ecumenical mix of acquaintances, partly through my past work and partly through working connections.
Let me plug that gap for you Nick. I am not alas a fisherman but I am for my sins a washed up burnt out investment banker.
And l will not be voting Conservative. Not possible for me to do that for medical reasons.
How disgraceful of Jeremy Corbyn to be avoiding £6k tax. Even if the reason was "a blunder by the taxman", that's no excuse. We all know ignorance is no defence.
Don't worry, when he is PM there will be no risk of underpayment of tax. All salaries will be paid directly to HMRC first, who will then send you what they feel is enough for you to survive on....
Nah, just on the wrong tax code, so paid a bit at the end with his self assessment return, like millions of others such as myself. No dodge involved at all.
How disgraceful of Jeremy Corbyn to be avoiding £6k tax. Even if the reason was "a blunder by the taxman", that's no excuse. We all know ignorance is no defence.
Don't worry, when he is PM there will be no risk of underpayment of tax. All salaries will be paid directly to HMRC first, who will then send you what they feel is enough for you to survive on....
At the end of March of the following year.
How silly of me to try to come up with a parody of anti-Corbynism. It will always be outdone by the real thing. ;-)
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
Nah, just on the wrong tax code, so paid a bit at the end with his self assessment return, like millions of others such as myself. No dodge involved at all.
No! No! No! He must have been doing something wrong, because it says he was "forced" to pay up. It's not as though anyone law-abiding is "forced" to pay tax.
Nah, just on the wrong tax code, so paid a bit at the end with his self assessment return, like millions of others such as myself. No dodge involved at all.
I'd have thought you'd be PAYE working for the NHS ?
How disgraceful of Jeremy Corbyn to be avoiding £6k tax. Even if the reason was "a blunder by the taxman", that's no excuse. We all know ignorance is no defence.
Don't worry, when he is PM there will be no risk of underpayment of tax. All salaries will be paid directly to HMRC first, who will then send you what they feel is enough for you to survive on....
At the end of March of the following year.
The problem with this is that it feels unfortunately close to how UC seems to have been set up.
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
It would be good to move a lot of the things the government can control outside of London, it would help boost the areas things are moved too and it is easy to imagine London could fill the space and cope with the loss.
In saying that a fair chunk of the the British population live in London so they should have some art for example close by. Their fair share.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
The thing is, if you are a tourist, or an academic researcher, you want all these resources in the same place because it makes visiting, studying or researching in them easier and cheaper, or even just practicable.
I wouldn't worry about businessmen complaining about current conditions. There's an old saying from where I was born, and it's true. Farmers always complain. It's either too wet or too dry, it's never just right.
A quote from a farmer saying conditions are perfect is never seem. Even if a farmer said it, the media would ignore it.
Businesses are like old gits, they like certainty.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Do you really think that Robbins wasn't acting on instructions from May?
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
I don't know if it's still true but I once read that a third of the people in London at any one time don't live there they are tourists, commuters etc
I imagine Museums get more than their share of tourists and having world class Museums in London helps bring tourism. That's not simply to the benefit of Londoners.
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
It would be good to move a lot of the things the government can control outside of London, it would help boost the areas things are moved too and it is easy to imagine London could fill the space and cope with the loss.
In saying that a fair chunk of the the British population live in London so they should have some art for example close by. Their fair share.
Londoners can pay to travel to the rest of the country, and visit museums. That is what they expect the rest of the country to do at the moment.
Londoners are the Afrikaners of the UK. They have stolen the wealth of the rest of the country and appropriated it for their own use.
Just like the white Afrikaners stole the wealth of South Africa and appropriated it for their own use.
Nah, just on the wrong tax code, so paid a bit at the end with his self assessment return, like millions of others such as myself. No dodge involved at all.
I'd have thought you'd be PAYE working for the NHS ?
Even on PAYE, tax codes seem to have become very volatile. The HMRC computer does not (or did not a couple of years back, maybe they've fixed it) understand that bonuses are one-off payments, not permanent weekly or monthly additions to salary. It did not raise an electronic eyebrow when all my colleagues received a near-100 per cent pay rise on the same day.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Yup. A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Do you really think that Robbins wasn't acting on instructions from May?
Yes actually. I don't think May is that calculating and I think she is paralysed by indecision. I think Robbins is doing what he wants. Same as everyone else in this saga.
Sir Humphrey doesn't take instructions from the most incompetent Hacker ever.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Yup. A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
young people seem to believe that the magic money tree exists.. as they get older, they realise it doesn't.
The Tories need to speak to their strengths to a younger audience.
I believe most want to work hard, get on, get a house, exercise choice and be as independent as they can be. Many are quite entrepreneurial.
The trouble is that’s very difficult these days - with high debts, high house prices, and a limited number of decently paying jobs - so Labour is attracting them instead.
Anyone who is quite entrepreneurial is looking at a government that is recklessly playing ducks and drakes with business to pursue as extreme a version of Brexit as it can muster and then running a thousand miles away.
Brexit Tories = “fuck business”
Bang on cue, an article about business leaders being horrified by the Conservatives:
I feel queasy agreeing with Farage (and wouldn't use the phrase fifth column, Robbins is simply a real life Sir Humphrey) but he is right here. *vomit emoji*
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Yup. A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
We won't be equals and if we are that keen on FTAs, why are we ripping them up by leaving? Does anyone in politics even understand what an FTA is? Too often politicians talk as if an FTA is simply an intergovernmental agreement to spend (say) £10 billion on each other's goods.
I'm loving the idea that students are going to want to study in St Mary Mead rather than Shoreditch.
They study in the tiny backwaters of Princeton. Or Louvain. Or Gottingen. Or Durham.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Yup. A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
As equals!!
Indeed. UK trade is more important than Japan trade for the EU, for example, and much has been made of the recently negotiated FTA with Japan.
May is carrying on regardless but that's all she can do. She's a poor politician. But anyone who thinks the EU is a slick political machine wants their bumps felt. They are a junior school playground at best.
Unelected bureaucrats scurry around trying to look busy while noisy, shouty European leaders try to pursue their own agenda. Bedlam at least had some order.
We will replace their models with Seat Exeo's and Skoda Superbs, and Hyundai's and Kia's.
The ability to use an apostrophe has definitely supplanted BMI as the most statistically reliable indicator of Leave/Remain proclivity.
Interesting. You have an antipathy for Leavers who are slapdash with their punctuation. Fair enough. It may seem pedantic to some, but it is important to you. Your call.
Except... you wrote THIS in January.
"Probably... May deposed and A50 revoked or at the very least delayed. What we lotophagi of pb.com often forget is how wildly popular No Deal will be among the belligerent shit munchers of the north who smoke cigarettes and have clothes with writing on it."
So you don't just believe some Leaver PB-ers are a bit cavalier with their semi-colons. You believe your fellow Britons - millions of them - who voted Leave, and who come from the north - literally eat human feces. They are "shit eaters". And you support this with the clinching evidence that they smoke cigarettes and have "clothes with writing on it".
I suggest you are a virulent, anti-white racist snob. You are a fucking disgrace to this site and the best thing you can do is apologise, grovel, then leave the site and never return.
I once went to a Polish music festival.
It was in the North. The food was shit. The majority were smoking. Numerous 'Poland - First To Fight' Tshirts on display.
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
I know! The V&A could have a museum in Dundee as well and send its exhibitions there. How good would that be?
The reality is that London is a great place to visit because it has a critical mass of museums/shops/things to see. This attracts tourists from the world over and that has to be a good thing for UK plc. Would they come to Dundee to see the V&A? Maybe the odd one but we need hundreds of thousands.
I'm loving the idea that students are going to want to study in St Mary Mead rather than Shoreditch.
They study in the tiny backwaters of Princeton. Or Louvain. Or Gottingen. Or Durham.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
On regional distribution, ... "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"
I'm in favour of moving parliament to a cheaper and more central location, would be a boost for somewhere outside of London.
The other things that should be moved out are the London colleges & museums.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
There's an awful lot of students, particularly international students, who'd disagree strongly with you on the University front. Studying in London is an option plenty of people choose to take up due to the wider experience, and it's not as though that detracts from colleges elsewhere in the country.
On the museum front, that's all very well, but I don't think you're allowing for how much interest there really is in museums, outside of tourism and school trips. Having exhibits in London dramatically increases their potential audience, while funneling overseas money into the country.
How disgraceful of Jeremy Corbyn to be avoiding £6k tax. Even if the reason was "a blunder by the taxman", that's no excuse. We all know ignorance is no defence.
Don't worry, when he is PM there will be no risk of underpayment of tax. All salaries will be paid directly to HMRC first, who will then send you what they feel is enough for you to survive on....
At the end of March of the following year.
The problem with this is that it feels unfortunately close to how UC seems to have been set up.
They are sides of the same coin. This problem of over payment and under payment was rife with tax credits. Paye and UC are supposed to be live and respond in real time to the payments entered.
(Reuters) - A sudden, no-deal Brexit next month would have a very severe and immediately disruptive effects on almost all areas of Ireland's economy, the head of the country's central bank said on Wednesday. The central bank forecast last month that if Britain left the European Union without a deal, it could knock as much as 4 percentage points off the economy's growth rate in its first full year and up to 6 percentage points over a decade. "A sudden, no-deal scenario would have immediate disruptive effects that would permeate almost all areas of economic activity. The agri-food sector would be disproportionately affected, with a corresponding outsized impact on rural regions, especially near the border," Philip Lane said in a speech.
How many straws can you clutch at to try and avoid the truth? Your party is led by a numpty who is so unelectable and incompetent that he is unable to land a glove, let alone hold a consistent opinion poll lead, on the worst and most divided government in our recent political history. The only thing more absurd than Theresa May and the Brexiteers at the moment is Jeremy Corbyn and his Maduro sympathising cronies. You clearly are not stupid, so please stop apologising for him.
It's evident that we're not capitalising on Tory disarray, and naturally that concerns me. On the other hand, I like Corbyn and think he'd make a good PM. So we're back to the old electability vs attraction issue.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
Nick is very typical of a large number of Labour members. He likes Corbyn on a personal level. He sees qualities in him that he admires: mild, well mannered, not bothered about money, loyal to his friends, very concerned about social justice at home and abroad. In many ways, he is exactly how Labour members would like to see themselves. And because of that they just do not see all the baggage that Corbyn brings: his reliance on the advice of people who have spent their adult lives fighting the Labour party, his long friendships with anti-Semites and various apologists for terror, his automatic support for anti-Western regimes of any kind and his assumption that wealth creation just happens and does not need to be incentivised. Corbyn genuinely does make a lot of Labour members feel good about themselves. To the vast majority of voters this is totally inexplicable, of course - but Labour members, like Tory members, are nothing like the vast majority of voters.
What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
I know you want an excuse for when the EU continues to hold firm on the backstop, but this isn't a very good one. They know full well that Robbins doesn't represent parliament.
I'm loving the idea that students are going to want to study in St Mary Mead rather than Shoreditch.
They study in the tiny backwaters of Princeton. Or Louvain. Or Gottingen. Or Durham.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
I never mentioned "Armpit, Shropshire" or "St Mary Mead". As you well know, I am talking about medium-sized towns.
If students want to study in London, let them -- I am not advocating moving Queen Mary. I am just pointing out that there are Colleges in prime real estate, which adds to the cost of studying or working there. They could be moved and the move will generate money, which could be used to subsidise student tuition. (This is what Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich or Leiden University are doing).
Why are the Lewis Chessmen in London? They should **all** be in Lewis (or in Edinburgh). Why is the Mold Cape in London? It should be in North Wales (or in Cardiff). These artefacts should be returned to locations as close as possible to their provenance. There is absolutely no need for Londoners to hoard things from Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
Of course, many Londoners are wealthy now. The white Afrikaners were wealthy. They stole from the rest of the country.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
On a point of order.. it's *Arscott*, Shropshire.
And the university is at Edgmond, pop 2062 (2011 census)
(Reuters) - A sudden, no-deal Brexit next month would have a very severe and immediately disruptive effects on almost all areas of Ireland's economy, the head of the country's central bank said on Wednesday. The central bank forecast last month that if Britain left the European Union without a deal, it could knock as much as 4 percentage points off the economy's growth rate in its first full year and up to 6 percentage points over a decade. "A sudden, no-deal scenario would have immediate disruptive effects that would permeate almost all areas of economic activity. The agri-food sector would be disproportionately affected, with a corresponding outsized impact on rural regions, especially near the border," Philip Lane said in a speech.
I feel queasy agreeing with Farage (and wouldn't use the phrase fifth column, Robbins is simply a real life Sir Humphrey) but he is right here. *vomit emoji*
On on level, you could sympathise with Robbins, going off to the bar to get smashed after another day of banging his head against the EU. Shoutingto anyone in ear-shot about our secret Brexit stategy. Trying to get "relieved of his duties" of his hellish day job.
It must be like a vegan, turning up day after day to taste the new range of meat pies.
But then I look at the shit-fest he has helped make of Brexit and think - nah.
Farage must be going soft. Surely he believes in the death penalty for treason?
I see he is starting to warm up his Trumpian 'It's all the elite's fault'/betrayal narrative for his new Brexit Party.
No doubt Bannon is keeping him fed with ideas.
I suppose we will be spared the whole 'build a wall' thing as we are an island. Unless he decides Hadrian's needs rebuilding.
We may need it - if Scotland votes for independence from London and Subservience to Brussels. (Obviously we would have to negotiate what to do with Northumberland, north of the wall). (Scotland is notionally a substantial gainer from EU funding, if they think that would continue post a brexit/Scotmain then they are incredibly naive.)
I'm loving the idea that students are going to want to study in St Mary Mead rather than Shoreditch.
They study in the tiny backwaters of Princeton. Or Louvain. Or Gottingen. Or Durham.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
Personally Londoners have my gratitude.
They work harder and pay more taxes and willingly have a shite quality of life all so that they can help keep others in the style which they like.
How many straws can you clutch at to try and avoid the truth? Your party is led by a numpty who is so unelectable and incompetent that he is unable to land a glove, let alone hold a consistent opinion poll lead, on the worst and most divided government in our recent political history. The only thing more absurd than Theresa May and the Brexiteers at the moment is Jeremy Corbyn and his Maduro sympathising cronies. You clearly are not stupid, so please stop apologising for him.
It's evident that we're not capitalising on Tory disarray, and naturally that concerns me. On the other hand, I like Corbyn and think he'd make a good PM. So we're back to the old electability vs attraction issue.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
Nick is very typical of a large number of Labour members. He likes Corbyn on a personal level. He sees qualities in him that he admires: mild, well mannered, not bothered about money, loyal to his friends, very concerned about social justice at home and abroad. In many ways, he is exactly how Labour members would like to see themselves. And because of that they just do not see all the baggage that Corbyn brings: his reliance on the advice of people who have spent their adult lives fighting the Labour party, his long friendships with anti-Semites and various apologists for terror, his automatic support for anti-Western regimes of any kind and his assumption that wealth creation just happens and does not need to be incentivised. Corbyn genuinely does make a lot of Labour members feel good about themselves. To the vast majority of voters this is totally inexplicable, of course - but Labour members, like Tory members, are nothing like the vast majority of voters.
What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
This is in complete contradiction to the polls, which show that his policies are far more popular than he is personally.
I feel queasy agreeing with Farage (and wouldn't use the phrase fifth column, Robbins is simply a real life Sir Humphrey) but he is right here. *vomit emoji*
One of May's greatest talents surely must be the way she has managed to convince people that it is her senior officials who are to blame for her policies and her choices.
(Reuters) - A sudden, no-deal Brexit next month would have a very severe and immediately disruptive effects on almost all areas of Ireland's economy, the head of the country's central bank said on Wednesday. The central bank forecast last month that if Britain left the European Union without a deal, it could knock as much as 4 percentage points off the economy's growth rate in its first full year and up to 6 percentage points over a decade. "A sudden, no-deal scenario would have immediate disruptive effects that would permeate almost all areas of economic activity. The agri-food sector would be disproportionately affected, with a corresponding outsized impact on rural regions, especially near the border," Philip Lane said in a speech.
Much as I admire Reuters they could do with a little thinking before writing "it could knock as much as 4 percentage points off the economy's growth rate in its first full year and up to 6 percentage points over a decade." when they mean not "growth" but level of GDP.
Well technically you are one derivative out. No sign of any increase in inflation.
(My only reason to comment is to pass on this nugget
"In the fall of 1972, President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi )
Prices Inflation Increase in Inflation Rate of increase in inflation.
Well technically you are one derivative out. No sign of any increase in inflation.
(My only reason to comment is to pass on this nugget
"In the fall of 1972, President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi )
Prices Inflation Increase in Inflation Rate of increase in inflation.
How many straws can you clutch at to try and avoid the truth? Your party is led by a numpty who is so unelectable and incompetent that he is unable to land a glove, let alone hold a consistent opinion poll lead, on the worst and most divided government in our recent political history. The only thing more absurd than Theresa May and the Brexiteers at the moment is Jeremy Corbyn and his Maduro sympathising cronies. You clearly are not stupid, so please stop apologising for him.
It's evident that we're not capitalising on Tory disarray, and naturally that concerns me. On the other hand, I like Corbyn and think he'd make a good PM. So we're back to the old electability vs attraction issue.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
Nick is very typical of a large number of Labour members. He likes Corbyn on a personal level. He sees qualities in him that he admires: mild, well mannered, not bothered about money, loyal to his friends, very concerned about social justice at home and abroad. In many ways, he is exactly how Labour members would like to see themselves. And because of that they just do not see all the baggage that Corbyn brings: his reliance on the advice of people who have spent their adult lives fighting the Labour party, his long friendships with anti-Semites and various apologists for terror, his automatic support for anti-Western regimes of any kind and his assumption that wealth creation just happens and does not need to be incentivised. Corbyn genuinely does make a lot of Labour members feel good about themselves. To the vast majority of voters this is totally inexplicable, of course - but Labour members, like Tory members, are nothing like the vast majority of voters.
What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
This is in complete contradiction to the polls, which show that his policies are far more popular than he is personally.
I'm loving the idea that students are going to want to study in St Mary Mead rather than Shoreditch.
They study in the tiny backwaters of Princeton. Or Louvain. Or Gottingen. Or Durham.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
It suits some students. Other students, however, choose to go to the bright lights and big city. Those students are not going to up sticks and go to Armpit, Shropshire.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
I never mentioned "Armpit, Shropshire" or "St Mary Mead". As you well know, I am talking about medium-sized towns.
If students want to study in London, let them -- I am not advocating moving Queen Mary. I am just pointing out that there are Colleges in prime real estate, which adds to the cost of studying or working there. They could be moved and the move will generate money, which could be used to subsidise student tuition. (This is what Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich or Leiden University are doing).
Why are the Lewis Chessmen in London? They should **all** be in Lewis (or in Edinburgh). Why is the Mold Cape in London? It should be in North Wales (or in Cardiff). These artefacts should be returned to locations as close as possible to their provenance. There is absolutely no need for Londoners to hoard things from Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
Of course, many Londoners are wealthy now. The white Afrikaners were wealthy. They stole from the rest of the country.
It wasn’t worth much when they stole it. Like the comparison with the Afrikaners, it’s not what they stole that annoys you, its what they’ve done with it. They’ve managed to take the bit they have and make a lot out of it, South Africa, Israel, London. All extremely wealthy, but surrounded by areas no less rich in natural resources who don’t do nearly as well.
Just as May finally does the right thing and starts to appear like she really will take no deal over a bad deal, starting to put pressure on Tusk etc to actually compromise ... along comes Robbins to say that if there is no deal we will stay in the EU instead taking all pressure off Tusk etc to compromise.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
Yup. A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
"Managed no-deal" is an euphemism and an inaccurate one at that. One could argue that it is "mitigated" (since efforts are underway on both sides to do exactly that) but it isn't "managed". We don't describe crash landings as "managed no-control landings".
How many straws can you clutch at to try and avoid the truth? Your party is led by a numpty who is so unelectable and incompetent that he is unable to land a glove, let alone hold a consistent opinion poll lead, on the worst and most divided government in our recent political history. The only thing more absurd than Theresa May and the Brexiteers at the moment is Jeremy Corbyn and his Maduro sympathising cronies. You clearly are not stupid, so please stop apologising for him.
It's evident that we're not capitalising on Tory disarray, and naturally that concerns me. On the other hand, I like Corbyn and think he'd make a good PM. So we're back to the old electability vs attraction issue.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
Nick is very typical of a large number of Labour members. He likes Corbyn on a personal level. He sees qualities in him that he admires: mild, well mannered, not bothered about money, loyal to his friends, very concerned about social justice at home and abroad. In many ways, he is exactly how Labour members would like to see themselves. And because of that they just do not see all the baggage that Corbyn brings: his reliance on the advice of people who have spent their adult lives fighting the Labour party, his long friendships with anti-Semites and various apologists for terror, his automatic support for anti-Western regimes of any kind and his assumption that wealth creation just happens and does not need to be incentivised. Corbyn genuinely does make a lot of Labour members feel good about themselves. To the vast majority of voters this is totally inexplicable, of course - but Labour members, like Tory members, are nothing like the vast majority of voters.
What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
Reminiscent of that old BBC drama GBH.
Which raises the question wtf you are doing supporting a party like this.
Comments
Small subset anecdote alert. My other half is a teacher in a rural based not particularly well off school. She regularly does mock elections and discusses values. She did an election with her year 10s the other week. They had to set up a party, some core ideas and they spent a few weeks working through the manifestos (more time than the conservatives seemed to do in 2017). If you think today’s mid teens are soft lefty millennials you might be in for a shock...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Southampton_plant
"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again: but already it was impossible to say which was which."
There's a reason the German word for debt and guilt is the same (Schuld).
https://twitter.com/SunPolitics/status/1095593424353406977
Is it one Grayling should have tendered through the OJEU?
No need for a dedicated parliament building in that case, I think.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/12/sports/westminster-dog-show-best-in-show.html
(And if you watch the clip - look at the size of those rosettes!!! OMRLP should get some of those ordered.)
"The data shows that the Tories move ahead around age 60,"
I think it's conservative with a small 'c', and there's several reasons. One is the attitude to risk-taking. The phrase 'Anything can happen' encapsulates it. To a 20 year-old, that's exciting, to a seventy year-old, it's worrying.
Experience comes into it as well. Old gits (and gittesses) have seen disasters happen when you ignore common sense. If it's new and bright and sparkly, it can look attractive, even if it has a large warning sign.
Evolutionary-wise, there'd ne little point keeping old gits alive past fifty unless they added something. Women become infertile and sperm quality becomes poorer. That something could be experience and caution.
You could make the same point about gay people and that has been discussed previously.
At least this is only peripherally related to Brexit.
And l will not be voting Conservative. Not possible for me to do that for medical reasons.
But from what you've said up to now, I'm not convinced you would vote Labour if we were led by, say, Yvette on a platform not dissimilar to 2017. You'd feel more tempted. You'd give it serious consideration. And then you'd vote Tory. No? There are no prizes in politics for being quite liked by people who won't vote for you, though it undeniably feels quite nice.
At the end of March of the following year.
There is absolutely no need to have King's College located in the Strand or Imperial College in South Ken or University College in Bloomsbury.
It adds hugely to the expense of studying there, or working there.
These Colleges could be moved to the outskirts of London, or elsewhere. They could sell their prime real estate, move to somewhere cheaper and still have enough money left to invest in research or run a needs-blind admissions policy.
There is vast over-concentration of museums and galleries in London, many of which do not even have enough space to show a fraction of their exhibits. They should be moved out of London.
The exhibits don't belong to Londoners. Largely, Londoners stole them from the rest of the country (or from other countries).
They should be dispersed back to museums in Wales, Scotland, North of England, and elsewhere.
In saying that a fair chunk of the the British population live in London so they should have some art for example close by. Their fair share.
May should sack Robbins today. She won't. She should have when her deal died in Parliament and Parliament voted to renegotiate.
A quote from a farmer saying conditions are perfect is never seem. Even if a farmer said it, the media would ignore it.
Businesses are like old gits, they like certainty.
I imagine Museums get more than their share of tourists and having world class Museums in London helps bring tourism. That's not simply to the benefit of Londoners.
https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/sheffield-council-to-apologise-after-residents-deliberately-misled-about-tree-felling-report-1-9588946?fbclid=IwAR3of6DE2fcwTMdn4aFqKnb4Dte8rkxxbMT4ro0qAQ1D1rKkTNi2VOXODrM
*Local
Londoners are the Afrikaners of the UK. They have stolen the wealth of the rest of the country and appropriated it for their own use.
Just like the white Afrikaners stole the wealth of South Africa and appropriated it for their own use.
https://twitter.com/Nigel_Farage/status/1095424323790295041
A managed no-deal is the best outcome. First get out, then after the dust has settled negotiate an FTA as equals.
Sir Humphrey doesn't take instructions from the most incompetent Hacker ever.
These are all small towns with little else but big Universities.
A managed epidemic.
Managed earthquake.
More generally, I'm all in favour of an equitable redistribution between London and the rest of the UK. The extra £30 billion or so a year for London would come in very handy.
Unelected bureaucrats scurry around trying to look busy while noisy, shouty European leaders try to pursue their own agenda. Bedlam at least had some order.
No doubt Bannon is keeping him fed with ideas.
I suppose we will be spared the whole 'build a wall' thing as we are an island. Unless he decides Hadrian's needs rebuilding.
It was in the North.
The food was shit.
The majority were smoking.
Numerous 'Poland - First To Fight' Tshirts on display.
It's an event that happens to you.
Like a car crash. Epidemic. Earthquake.
None of them can be managed.
No sign of inflation
The reality is that London is a great place to visit because it has a critical mass of museums/shops/things to see. This attracts tourists from the world over and that has to be a good thing for UK plc. Would they come to Dundee to see the V&A? Maybe the odd one but we need hundreds of thousands.
Odd cove, Johnny European....
On the museum front, that's all very well, but I don't think you're allowing for how much interest there really is in museums, outside of tourism and school trips. Having exhibits in London dramatically increases their potential audience, while funneling overseas money into the country.
month would have a very severe and immediately disruptive
effects on almost all areas of Ireland's economy, the head of
the country's central bank said on Wednesday.
The central bank forecast last month that if Britain left
the European Union without a deal, it could knock as much as 4
percentage points off the economy's growth rate in its first
full year and up to 6 percentage points over a decade.
"A sudden, no-deal scenario would have immediate disruptive
effects that would permeate almost all areas of economic
activity. The agri-food sector would be disproportionately
affected, with a corresponding outsized impact on rural regions,
especially near the border," Philip Lane said in a speech.
What all this means is that for the membership having Jeremy Corbyn in charge is far more important than winning a general election. It's totemic. But here's the thing - because a lot of it is actually personal to Corbyn, it would be wrong to assume that this affection will automatically transfer to the next person the far left offers up for leadership. It will have to be earned. If it isn't, I suspect the next leader - who is a long way off (way past the next election whatever the result) - may be more mainstream.
If students want to study in London, let them -- I am not advocating moving Queen Mary. I am just pointing out that there are Colleges in prime real estate, which adds to the cost of studying or working there. They could be moved and the move will generate money, which could be used to subsidise student tuition. (This is what Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich or Leiden University are doing).
Why are the Lewis Chessmen in London? They should **all** be in Lewis (or in Edinburgh). Why is the Mold Cape in London? It should be in North Wales (or in Cardiff). These artefacts should be returned to locations as close as possible to their provenance. There is absolutely no need for Londoners to hoard things from Wales, Scotland or Ireland.
Of course, many Londoners are wealthy now. The white Afrikaners were wealthy. They stole from the rest of the country.
And the university is at Edgmond, pop 2062 (2011 census)
It must be like a vegan, turning up day after day to taste the new range of meat pies.
But then I look at the shit-fest he has helped make of Brexit and think - nah.
https://digitalpublications.parliament.scot/ResearchBriefings/Report/2018/9/28/European-Union-funding-in-Scotland
They work harder and pay more taxes and willingly have a shite quality of life all so that they can help keep others in the style which they like.
(My only reason to comment is to pass on this nugget
"In the fall of 1972, President Nixon announced that the rate of increase of inflation was decreasing. This was the first time a sitting president used the third derivative to advance his case for reelection." - Hugo Rossi )
Prices
Inflation
Increase in Inflation
Rate of increase in inflation.
Which raises the question wtf you are doing supporting a party like this.