On Covid 19 - the second wave is already on in Spain and gettting there in France. However, with noticeably fewer actual deaths so far. Combination of better treatments, quicker testing, and maybe the first wave taking out the low hanging fruit?
The current victims are apparently much younger with many in the 20/40 age group. Almost certainly due to behavior as we unlocked.
In southern Almeria one outbreak involves 31 people all living in one house. Also masses of tests being redone due to false positives. This is not over anywhere yet.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
Brexit will be largely done and dusted by the latter half of 2021, and the only issue left will be the form and extent of future trade agreements with the EU and other trading partners, in other words not something that will really shape the future voting choices of all but a few zealots. Meanwhile reality will be biting after the massive pain-free fiscal expansion of 2020, with millions of jobs ending in 2020 once the government ceases to pay the wages of 9 million furloughed staff. While in times of plenty people may not have cared much about whether the largesse was well spent, it'll become more of an issue once things go into reverse in order to pay for the huge debts incurred. Tax rises on those on middling incomes or another even more severe bout of austerity, all against a background of interest rates that are slowly rising back closer to historic norms. Finally, the virus will prove stubborn enough that expectations of an end to restrictions by the end of 2020 will be dashed, such that the current fairly buoyant mood will prove short lived.
I think that's by far the most likely outcome, rather than an unduly pessimistic one. It's also a 2021 scenario where Starmer has every prospect of making substantial inroads into the 2019 Tory vote.
As has been shown Covid and the lockdown has made zero inroads in the Tory vote thanks to the furlough and likely will not do as lockdown continues to ease and businesses get back to close to normality with social distancing.
Boris has also made clear austerity is over and the only tax rises considered might be a review of capital gains tax for the wealthy, middle income voters will be untouched and of course Starmer will always raise tax more than Boris anyway.
So no, WTO terms Brexit is the only thing that might really change voting intention
I knew you were going to come back with some tosh such as that. I think most of us here can see through your false claims, and having made my point I see no reason to waste time by continuing an argument with you just because you can't or won't.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that 7,360 deaths have been recorded worldwide in the last 24 hours, the largest daily increase since last May 10. In addition, it has reported a new daily record of infections, with 259,848 new positives in the past day.
People are not realising this. It’s now worse than it’s ever been worldwide, even as many local economies seem to have recovered to a large extent.
India's recorded another record for new cases today.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
There are also cash only bars, I assume you'd apply the same logic to them for those who don't have the desire to carry cash?
Why should the same apply? Everyone has access to cash not everyone has access to card payments. If you were to excuse white only hairdressers as there was black only hairdressers just across the road you would quite rightly be called a bigot
Everyone can get access to a payment card of some type.
It may be hard, just as getting cash may be for some who life electronically.
Getting cash is never hard, if you are near a shop you are 90% of the time in walking distance of a cash point
Yet the Tesco or Amazon turn up at my front door I can never get cash off them.
I have to make an effort to get cash.
Others would have to go to an effort to get a payment card, their choice not to if they so choose.
If Tesco's or Amazon turn up you have already paid else they wouldn't have turned up. Its a lot more effort to get a payment card for those that don't have one than to find a damn cashpoint
I suspect the fact a good proportion of bars in central Manc charge £5, £6 or even £7 per pint is much more of a problem for those who do not have access to a card than anything else tbh.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
Brexit will be largely done and dusted by the latter half of 2021, and the only issue left will be the form and extent of future trade agreements with the EU and other trading partners, in other words not something that will really shape the future voting choices of all but a few zealots. Meanwhile reality will be biting after the massive pain-free fiscal expansion of 2020, with millions of jobs ending in 2020 once the government ceases to pay the wages of 9 million furloughed staff. While in times of plenty people may not have cared much about whether the largesse was well spent, it'll become more of an issue once things go into reverse in order to pay for the huge debts incurred. Tax rises on those on middling incomes or another even more severe bout of austerity, all against a background of interest rates that are slowly rising back closer to historic norms. Finally, the virus will prove stubborn enough that expectations of an end to restrictions by the end of 2020 will be dashed, such that the current fairly buoyant mood will prove short lived.
I think that's by far the most likely outcome, rather than an unduly pessimistic one. It's also a 2021 scenario where Starmer has every prospect of making substantial inroads into the 2019 Tory vote.
As has been shown Covid and the lockdown has made zero inroads in the Tory vote thanks to the furlough and likely will not do as lockdown continues to ease and businesses get back to close to normality with social distancing.
Boris has also made clear austerity is over and the only tax rises considered might be a review of capital gains tax for the wealthy, middle income voters will be untouched and of course Starmer will always raise tax more than Boris anyway.
So no, WTO terms Brexit is the only thing that might really change voting intention
I knew you were going to come back with some tosh such as that. I think most of us here can see through your false claims, and having made my point I see no reason to waste time by continuing an argument with you just because you can't or won't.
There haven’t been huge debts incurred - it’s money that’s been printed by the BoE.
Taxes will go up, because revenues will have gone down, but most of the spending has been in one time Covid programmes
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
Bars can serve who ever they like and refuse whoever they like with no reason required.
This last is true, though there are exceptions such as racial grounds, but astonishingly it is lawful to refuse to take cash. This will increasingly be the case, while luddites (like me) await with interest a major electronic break down to see how long the contempt for good old cash lasts.
It had always seemed to me to be axiomatic that as long as there were drug dealer, taxi drivers, small builders, on course bookies and people with a certain cautious wariness about the HMRC that cash would be around. Perhaps I am wrong.
I think it fairly well established that people spending electronically spend more freely.
One other good reason for electronic only payments is that it prevents lightfingered bar staff from helping themselves.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
Brexit will be largely done and dusted by the latter half of 2021, and the only issue left will be the form and extent of future trade agreements with the EU and other trading partners, in other words not something that will really shape the future voting choices of all but a few zealots. Meanwhile reality will be biting after the massive pain-free fiscal expansion of 2020, with millions of jobs ending in 2020 once the government ceases to pay the wages of 9 million furloughed staff. While in times of plenty people may not have cared much about whether the largesse was well spent, it'll become more of an issue once things go into reverse in order to pay for the huge debts incurred. Tax rises on those on middling incomes or another even more severe bout of austerity, all against a background of interest rates that are slowly rising back closer to historic norms. Finally, the virus will prove stubborn enough that expectations of an end to restrictions by the end of 2020 will be dashed, such that the current fairly buoyant mood will prove short lived.
I think that's by far the most likely outcome, rather than an unduly pessimistic one. It's also a 2021 scenario where Starmer has every prospect of making substantial inroads into the 2019 Tory vote.
As has been shown Covid and the lockdown has made zero inroads in the Tory vote thanks to the furlough and likely will not do as lockdown continues to ease and businesses get back to close to normality with social distancing.
Boris has also made clear austerity is over and the only tax rises considered might be a review of capital gains tax for the wealthy, middle income voters will be untouched and of course Starmer will always raise tax more than Boris anyway.
So no, WTO terms Brexit is the only thing that might really change voting intention
I knew you were going to come back with some tosh such as that. I think most of us here can see through your false claims, and having made my point I see no reason to waste time by continuing an argument with you just because you can't or won't.
It's a simple feel good, slight, bounce from lockdown ending.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that 7,360 deaths have been recorded worldwide in the last 24 hours, the largest daily increase since last May 10. In addition, it has reported a new daily record of infections, with 259,848 new positives in the past day.
People are not realising this. It’s now worse than it’s ever been worldwide, even as many local economies seem to have recovered to a large extent.
This graphic is also bound to represent a gross underestimate. Most cases in South Asia, the Middle East and especially Iran won't be being picked up by testing (or being reported properly even if they are) and the bulk of the Americas (the West Indies and Canada excepted) is going through the blender.
There seems to be a lot less noise coming out of sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa excepted, so hopefully they're managing to stay on top of this. African countries don't have OECD levels of medical care but they have a lot of experience in combating epidemic disease, and may therefore transpire to be capable of mounting a better defence than many developed states to this particular threat.
Re: Cash or Card - why not "Boris Bucks" as alternative? Essentially government script which could be used for variety of goods and services from paying for moat dredging to buying day-old fish & chips. Could be pegged against the PM's cholesterol count or somesuch.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
Brexit will be largely done and dusted by the latter half of 2021, and the only issue left will be the form and extent of future trade agreements with the EU and other trading partners, in other words not something that will really shape the future voting choices of all but a few zealots. Meanwhile reality will be biting after the massive pain-free fiscal expansion of 2020, with millions of jobs ending in 2020 once the government ceases to pay the wages of 9 million furloughed staff. While in times of plenty people may not have cared much about whether the largesse was well spent, it'll become more of an issue once things go into reverse in order to pay for the huge debts incurred. Tax rises on those on middling incomes or another even more severe bout of austerity, all against a background of interest rates that are slowly rising back closer to historic norms. Finally, the virus will prove stubborn enough that expectations of an end to restrictions by the end of 2020 will be dashed, such that the current fairly buoyant mood will prove short lived.
I think that's by far the most likely outcome, rather than an unduly pessimistic one. It's also a 2021 scenario where Starmer has every prospect of making substantial inroads into the 2019 Tory vote.
As has been shown Covid and the lockdown has made zero inroads in the Tory vote thanks to the furlough and likely will not do as lockdown continues to ease and businesses get back to close to normality with social distancing.
Boris has also made clear austerity is over and the only tax rises considered might be a review of capital gains tax for the wealthy, middle income voters will be untouched and of course Starmer will always raise tax more than Boris anyway.
So no, WTO terms Brexit is the only thing that might really change voting intention
I knew you were going to come back with some tosh such as that. I think most of us here can see through your false claims, and having made my point I see no reason to waste time by continuing an argument with you just because you can't or won't.
You made clear you have an ideological agenda that there will be a heavy recession followed by big tax rises and heavy austerity, I made clear Boris is not going to play your game and if you do not like that tough
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
I think authors often have to struggle between writing something good and writing something that will pull in the cash. Netflix has the same problem, but it is not a new one. There is more money in airport throwaway reads than books that will be read in decades time too.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that 7,360 deaths have been recorded worldwide in the last 24 hours, the largest daily increase since last May 10. In addition, it has reported a new daily record of infections, with 259,848 new positives in the past day.
People are not realising this. It’s now worse than it’s ever been worldwide, even as many local economies seem to have recovered to a large extent.
This graphic is also bound to represent a gross underestimate. Most cases in South Asia, the Middle East and especially Iran won't be being picked up by testing (or being reported properly even if they are) and the bulk of the Americas (the West Indies and Canada excepted) is going through the blender.
There seems to be a lot less noise coming out of sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa excepted, so hopefully they're managing to stay on top of this. African countries don't have OECD levels of medical care but they have a lot of experience in combating epidemic disease, and may therefore transpire to be capable of mounting a better defence than many developed states to this particular threat.
Yes, we’re now seeing huge numbers of cases reported (and undoubtedly huge numbers not reported) in second and third world countries which do not have good reporting or healthcare systems.
Western countries need to be offering any assistance they can to those on the ground in these places - who as you say, often do have experience with containing infectious disease.
We also need to stop incoming traffic, yesterday, unless they’ve been tested or quarantined.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
I think authors often have to struggle between writing something good and writing something that will pull in the cash. Netflix has the same problem, but it is not a new one. There is more money in airport throwaway reads than books that will be read in decades time too.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
There are also cash only bars, I assume you'd apply the same logic to them for those who don't have the desire to carry cash?
Why should the same apply? Everyone has access to cash not everyone has access to card payments. If you were to excuse white only hairdressers as there was black only hairdressers just across the road you would quite rightly be called a bigot
Everyone can get access to a payment card of some type.
It may be hard, just as getting cash may be for some who life electronically.
Getting cash is never hard, if you are near a shop you are 90% of the time in walking distance of a cash point
Whilst I am broadly sympathetic to your general point, I live 5 miles from the nearest cash point.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Contactless is the preferred route
I was at an aerodrome caff today which insisted on cash only.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
I think authors often have to struggle between writing something good and writing something that will pull in the cash. Netflix has the same problem, but it is not a new one. There is more money in airport throwaway reads than books that will be read in decades time too.
Netflix also has a very long tail of movies and TV shows that cost them very little - they’re doing a good line in comedy shows and standup specials that cost less than a million an hour, and are getting comparatively good ratings.
If you voted Tory in December why wouldn’t you vote for them now? Those that did for the first time did not do so lightly so will need a lot of persuading to change. Johnson’s shine has come off, Starmer is presentable, but until real life gets under way again the polls are probably in a settled pattern of small to medium Tory leads. Labour has a lot more work to do. You can’t undo years of self-harm just like that.
Sunak is clearly betting the bank on a quick return to normal. If he gets that, the Tories will probably replace Johnson before the next election, which they’ll then win. If he doesn’t get it, things get a lot more interesting.
If our business is anything to go by, it’s going to be a very tough few years. Sunak will have to spend a pile more - and soon.
The World Health Organization (WHO) has reported that 7,360 deaths have been recorded worldwide in the last 24 hours, the largest daily increase since last May 10. In addition, it has reported a new daily record of infections, with 259,848 new positives in the past day.
People are not realising this. It’s now worse than it’s ever been worldwide, even as many local economies seem to have recovered to a large extent.
This graphic is also bound to represent a gross underestimate. Most cases in South Asia, the Middle East and especially Iran won't be being picked up by testing (or being reported properly even if they are) and the bulk of the Americas (the West Indies and Canada excepted) is going through the blender.
There seems to be a lot less noise coming out of sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa excepted, so hopefully they're managing to stay on top of this. African countries don't have OECD levels of medical care but they have a lot of experience in combating epidemic disease, and may therefore transpire to be capable of mounting a better defence than many developed states to this particular threat.
Yes, we’re now seeing huge numbers of cases reported (and undoubtedly huge numbers not reported) in second and third world countries which do not have good reporting or healthcare systems.
Western countries need to be offering any assistance they can to those on the ground in these places - who as you say, often do have experience with containing infectious disease.
We also need to stop incoming traffic, yesterday, unless they’ve been tested or quarantined.
Of the top 5 countries on cases though, the USA, Brazil, India, Russia and South Africa only the USA and Brazil are in the top 5 cases on deaths showing that is still the west rather than the third world most badly hit by Covid in terms of fatality rate because of its higher percentage of over 80s https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
There are also cash only bars, I assume you'd apply the same logic to them for those who don't have the desire to carry cash?
Why should the same apply? Everyone has access to cash not everyone has access to card payments. If you were to excuse white only hairdressers as there was black only hairdressers just across the road you would quite rightly be called a bigot
Everyone can get access to a payment card of some type.
It may be hard, just as getting cash may be for some who life electronically.
Getting cash is never hard, if you are near a shop you are 90% of the time in walking distance of a cash point
Whilst I am broadly sympathetic to your general point, I live 5 miles from the nearest cash point.
But I am not arguing you shouldn't be allowed to pay with a card, I am merely arguing cash should always be acceptable within reasonable limits. Obviously paying a 20£ bill with pennies etc but reasonable cash payments so it wouldn't affect you
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
I think authors often have to struggle between writing something good and writing something that will pull in the cash. Netflix has the same problem, but it is not a new one. There is more money in airport throwaway reads than books that will be read in decades time too.
Don’t really know what Labour can/should do tbh? How do they break through?
Labour are in a catch-22 situation because anything they do to win back Red Wall voters will annoy their current core vote in the big cities and university towns, and vice versa. Win Blyth Valley, lose Canterbury. Or gain Chipping Barnet and lose Sunderland.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
What draconian statist nonsense.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
If you voted Tory in December why wouldn’t you vote for them now? Those that did for the first time did not do so lightly so will need a lot of persuading to change. Johnson’s shine has come off, Starmer is presentable, but until real life gets under way again the polls are probably in a settled pattern of small to medium Tory leads. Labour has a lot more work to do. You can’t undo years of self-harm just like that.
Sunak is clearly betting the bank on a quick return to normal. If he gets that, the Tories will probably replace Johnson before the next election, which they’ll then win. If he doesn’t get it, things get a lot more interesting.
If our business is anything to go by, it’s going to be a very tough few years. Sunak will have to spend a pile more - and soon.
More importantly, the other elephant in the room is still mid-air, and we won't know for sure which way it will land for a while yet.
If our post-Brexit future really does have lots of positives, and negatives confined to people we don't really care about, then the government wins next time, and (ghastly as they are) deservedly so.
If it doesn't, or even if it's a curate's egg (the losers will be much more unhappy than the winners are happy), then the Johnson miracle coalition could fracture pretty thoroughly.
If you voted Tory in December why wouldn’t you vote for them now? Those that did for the first time did not do so lightly so will need a lot of persuading to change. Johnson’s shine has come off, Starmer is presentable, but until real life gets under way again the polls are probably in a settled pattern of small to medium Tory leads. Labour has a lot more work to do. You can’t undo years of self-harm just like that.
Sunak is clearly betting the bank on a quick return to normal. If he gets that, the Tories will probably replace Johnson before the next election, which they’ll then win. If he doesn’t get it, things get a lot more interesting.
If our business is anything to go by, it’s going to be a very tough few years. Sunak will have to spend a pile more - and soon.
I voted Tory in a safe Labour seat as the most direct and forceful protest vote I could safely make on Corbyn. My LD vote in 2017 (when the MP's majority was smaller) was the same reasoning. Starmer (or the like) is ultimately what I wanted from my vote. I would now poll as Labour VI.
Don’t really know what Labour can/should do tbh? How do they break through?
Labour are in a catch-22 situation because anything they do to win back Red Wall voters will annoy their current core vote in the big cities and university towns, and vice versa. Win Blyth Valley, lose Canterbury. Or gain Chipping Barnet and lose Sunderland.
Not so sure about that. That didn’t happen in 2017. A lot of Labour and Tory votes are about being the least worst option.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
There are also cash only bars, I assume you'd apply the same logic to them for those who don't have the desire to carry cash?
Why should the same apply? Everyone has access to cash not everyone has access to card payments. If you were to excuse white only hairdressers as there was black only hairdressers just across the road you would quite rightly be called a bigot
Everyone can get access to a payment card of some type.
It may be hard, just as getting cash may be for some who life electronically.
Getting cash is never hard, if you are near a shop you are 90% of the time in walking distance of a cash point
Whilst I am broadly sympathetic to your general point, I live 5 miles from the nearest cash point.
But I am not arguing you shouldn't be allowed to pay with a card, I am merely arguing cash should always be acceptable within reasonable limits. Obviously paying a 20£ bill with pennies etc but reasonable cash payments so it wouldn't affect you
I entirely agree with you. There are millions of folk with no access to and plenty with no desire to use plastic. However, there are also cash deserts in rural areas too.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
The most recent Star Wars film trilogy grossed about 10 x that amount, but that still doesn't stop them being absolute piles of shite!
Let me put it this way - go to any food court at any mall, say Westfield Stratford, you will see that McDonald's always has the longest queue, as compared to the other food outlets. Popularity doesn't equal greatness.
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
Call us naive but we have no idea why this fight has become so bitter
It seems like the left and woke are eating themselves
Don’t really know what Labour can/should do tbh? How do they break through?
Labour are in a catch-22 situation because anything they do to win back Red Wall voters will annoy their current core vote in the big cities and university towns, and vice versa. Win Blyth Valley, lose Canterbury. Or gain Chipping Barnet and lose Sunderland.
Not true. A focus on jobs for one. Given that we will shortly be in a situation where, unlike the 80's, people will be out of work nationwide. Jobs, jobs, jobs.
Don’t really know what Labour can/should do tbh? How do they break through?
Labour are in a catch-22 situation because anything they do to win back Red Wall voters will annoy their current core vote in the big cities and university towns, and vice versa. Win Blyth Valley, lose Canterbury. Or gain Chipping Barnet and lose Sunderland.
Lose Aberdeen, lose Dundee, lose Edinburgh, lose Glasgow. No catch-22 for SLab: they are very consistent.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
What draconian statist nonsense.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
Don't talk such drivel you claim to be a libertarian. Mandating cash must be accepted protects civil liberties. Is it statist yes it is but the other way lies total government oversight over every penny you spend.....go join the lefties as thats all you seem to argue for these days.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
Call us naive but we have no idea why this fight has become so bitter
It seems like the left and woke are eating themselves
My friend, I am the same. This debate is the most bizarre of all, amidst the global lunacy of the Culture Wars.
And it is at its worst in the UK, apparently.
The amazing thing is that careers are being ruined and media companies endangered, in the fall out from an argument which is so niche only about 8 people truly understand it. Like you, I am not one of them.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
There are also cash only bars, I assume you'd apply the same logic to them for those who don't have the desire to carry cash?
Why should the same apply? Everyone has access to cash not everyone has access to card payments. If you were to excuse white only hairdressers as there was black only hairdressers just across the road you would quite rightly be called a bigot
Everyone can get access to a payment card of some type.
It may be hard, just as getting cash may be for some who life electronically.
Getting cash is never hard, if you are near a shop you are 90% of the time in walking distance of a cash point
Whilst I am broadly sympathetic to your general point, I live 5 miles from the nearest cash point.
But I am not arguing you shouldn't be allowed to pay with a card, I am merely arguing cash should always be acceptable within reasonable limits. Obviously paying a 20£ bill with pennies etc but reasonable cash payments so it wouldn't affect you
I entirely agree with you. There are millions of folk with no access to and plenty with no desire to use plastic. However, there are also cash deserts in rural areas too.
If customers want to pay with cash then it will take compelling business reasons to say no to cash. There are many compelling reasons to say no though.
If businesses don't want to take cash then cash only customers can take their business elsewhere.
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
What draconian statist nonsense.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
Don't talk such drivel you claim to be a libertarian. Mandating cash must be accepted protects civil liberties. Is it statist yes it is but the other way lies total government oversight over every penny you spend.....go join the lefties as thats all you seem to argue for these days.
I am a libertarian because I think people - individuals and businesses - should make their own choices.
You think its "libertarian" to have Big Brother dictate to business what they must and must not take?
I am not saying to compel people to take cards. Nor am I saying to compel people to take cash. People should take what they want to take and refuse what they want to refuse. That is right wing and liberal, you are the bleeding lefty wanting the state interfering in business operations.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
The most recent Star Wars film trilogy grossed about 10 x that amount, but that still doesn't stop them being absolute piles of shite!
Let me put it this way - go to any food court at any mall, say Westfield Stratford, you will see that McDonald's always has the longest queue, as compared to the other food outlets. Popularity doesn't equal greatness.
Nor does being very wealthy, Mozart died a relative pauper
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
The first sentence the men have a point. There is no reason they shouldn't be allowed to pay with money. Many of us prefer not to use cards and I don't see a difference between handling notes and handling one of the hand held things to put your pin number is. Having said that they should have been barred for the second sentence content.
Are you allowed to refuse cash? I thought it always had to be accepted.
As I recall this has something to do with Truck acts
Loads of bars in Manchester only take card payment and have been since pre C-19, they just don't have anything to store cash in.
They all have card payment only on the front doors.
This is exactly the sort of thing that needs to be stamped out. Legal tender must always be an option. I shudder when people talk about a cashless society as all that does it put in traceability of every penny you spend to whitehall. I will never give patronage to a place that won't take cash.
Inevitably a cashless society ends up in your friend saying can I borrow 20£ off you I forgot my wallet and HMRC sending him a tax bill for what he owes as they count it as income.
Not the case.
I worked in bars in the early 90s, we could refuse service to anyone we wished back then without having to justify why, it's the only sector that this is the case.
It's just an extension of that, dozens and dozens of bars in Manchester are cashless given the types of customers they serve and the way they operate.
I didn't claim they weren't legally allowed to I said it had to be stamped out and that parliament should legislate that refusing cash should be a no go and patrons should boycott anywhere that refuses case. It is for a start discriminatory as an estimated couple of million people dont have access to a bank account
What draconian statist nonsense.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
Don't talk such drivel you claim to be a libertarian. Mandating cash must be accepted protects civil liberties. Is it statist yes it is but the other way lies total government oversight over every penny you spend.....go join the lefties as thats all you seem to argue for these days.
I am a libertarian because I think people - individuals and businesses - should make their own choices.
You think its "libertarian" to have Big Brother dictate to business what they must and must not take?
I am not saying to compel people to take cards. Nor am I saying to compel people to take cash. People should take what they want to take and refuse what they want to refuse. That is right wing and liberal, you are the bleeding lefty wanting the state interfering in business operations.
And I am arguing that people should have the right to choose cash or card and you are arguing that business should be able to decide despite the fact that authoritarian regimes will lean on them to take card only....I ask for legislation to support liberty you ask for no legislation to support authoritarianism just as you argue the rule of law only applies when it suits people......you aren't a libertarian you are a useful idiot in lenins words
The essence of libertarianism which you seem to neglect is not no state intervention, but the minimum state intervention to ensure a free society. You are arguing against that
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
Cash vs card is probably going to be the next cultural divide. All the pubs in places like Richmond and Barnes will be card only, whereas a lot of the pubs in Burnley and Redcar will continue to take cash (and most of their customers will be happy with that state of affairs).
I've used minimal amounts of currency since this blew up. Most small places insist on contactless for any value however small. A couple of takeaways that don't do plastic but all bar one can be ordered and paid for online.
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
When I was in Stockholm a couple of years ago, I struggled to find places, bars, restaurants, hotels, museums to take cash. Everything was electronic. That is the future of money.
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
They certainly want to end free movement, that was the main reason they voted for Brexit in 2016 and switched to the Tories in 2019.
You can still end free movement and have a trade deal with the EU, though it would require Boris to concede some regulatory alignment
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
I wonder what Starmer needs to do to win over 4% of voters that voted Corbyn in 2017 but are currently MIA
A lot depends on differential turnout. Starmer needs for the young to vote, particularly the educated under fifties, and women. The Tories trail badly with all of these groups.
If those older purple wall voters decide to stick home after Brexit then the job is near done.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
bollocks are they, people who voted tory last time is 44% of the electorate that doesn't make them tories or mean they buy into your view, thankfully not that many people in this country are like you
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
No, in the past I rarely used card, apart from Internet and petrol. Cash is dying.
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
Call us naive but we have no idea why this fight has become so bitter
It seems like the left and woke are eating themselves
My friend, I am the same. This debate is the most bizarre of all, amidst the global lunacy of the Culture Wars.
And it is at its worst in the UK, apparently.
The amazing thing is that careers are being ruined and media companies endangered, in the fall out from an argument which is so niche only about 8 people truly understand it. Like you, I am not one of them.
I'd hazard a guess that 99% of Guardian readers (and I'm one of them) neither know nor care about this 'Guardian Battle in the Culture Wars'.
You'll be telling us next that the country is about to descend into anarchy because a statue has been toppled in Bristol.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You aren't a Tory though. I think the mass of PB Tories have been very clear on that front...
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better end https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifty_Shades_of_Grey_(film)
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
I think authors often have to struggle between writing something good and writing something that will pull in the cash. Netflix has the same problem, but it is not a new one. There is more money in airport throwaway reads than books that will be read in decades time too.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You're the kind of voter that will be Tory until you die, your opinion is about as useful as my views on the Tory Party, i.e. not very.
And that's okay, I just don't think your views are very helpful. It's the swing voters that matter.
Is that dodgy? We are in the era of 50 Shades, after all
He’s being very insistent when she isn’t interested
Pretty much exactly the same happens - albeit much kinkier and sexier - in 50 Shades. A book bought by about 100 million women, turned into a very popular movie
"On Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 25% based on 277 reviews, with an average rating of 4.16/10. The website's critical consensus reads, "While creatively better endowed than its print counterpart, Fifty Shades of Grey is a less than satisfying experience on the screen."[182] Metacritic gave the film a score of 46 out of 100, based on reviews from 46 critics, indicating "mixed or average reviews"."
The producers must have cried all the way to the bank, where they stashed half a billion
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
The most recent Star Wars film trilogy grossed about 10 x that amount, but that still doesn't stop them being absolute piles of shite!
Let me put it this way - go to any food court at any mall, say Westfield Stratford, you will see that McDonald's always has the longest queue, as compared to the other food outlets. Popularity doesn't equal greatness.
No it doesn't, but LadyG said it was a popular movie, not that it was a great movie, so I'm not sure what point you're making. Everyone knows a lot, probably most, very popular movies and books and music and games, are not all that great. Even some ones which I'd argue are genuinely pretty great, like some of the Pixar films, are also very clearly conveyor belt, formulaic movies.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You aren't a Tory though. I think the mass of PB Tories have been very clear on that front...
A few like Philip Thompson, who voted for New Labour at least once and is a libertarian not a conservative and BigG, who voted for New Labour twice may have said that but I do not consider either of them true Tories as they do not always vote for the party
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You're the kind of voter that will be Tory until you die, your opinion is about as useful as my views on the Tory Party, i.e. not very.
And that's okay, I just don't think your views are very helpful. It's the swing voters that matter.
People know my personal views but normally I can differentiate those from what I think will happen at a future election, I have never said the Tories will win every election for the rest of time
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
They certainly want to end free movement, that was the main reason they voted for Brexit in 2016 and switched to the Tories in 2019.
You can still end free movement and have a trade deal with the EU, though it would require Boris to concede some regulatory alignment
That's the first question; can the UK concede enough regulatory alignment to make a Canada {maths symbol} trade deal with the EU without too much Conservative support falling off?
The second, separate, question is whether that trade deal will keep trade frictions gentle enough that industry can continue to thrive? That, frankly, remains to be seen.
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?
Cash vs card makes me laugh; in my trade many people prefer cheques!
Some conversion to bank transfers during the lockdown, but it won't ever be 100% amongst my customers until the day cheques are phased out (which I hope is never, they're quite useful).
I've been using card much more - but largely because far more places in Dorset are now encouraging card. I much prefer it in the shop, as otherwise I have to go to the bank with it. Smaller retailers are gradually seeing the benefits. I suspect greater usage will also result in more competition and lower transaction fees.
Oh, and of course it is no business of the government to mandate what form of payment is accepted. Plenty of places I visit have been card only for years....
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You aren't a Tory though. I think the mass of PB Tories have been very clear on that front...
A few like Philip Thompson, who voted for New Labour at least once and is a libertarian not a conservative and BigG, who voted for New Labour twice may have said that but I do not consider either of them true Tories as they do not always vote for the party
I do not give a fig what you consider.
More often than not you embarrass the party on this forum and by the way your membership is no more valid than mine
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
They certainly want to end free movement, that was the main reason they voted for Brexit in 2016 and switched to the Tories in 2019.
You can still end free movement and have a trade deal with the EU, though it would require Boris to concede some regulatory alignment
That's the first question; can the UK concede enough regulatory alignment to make a Canada {maths symbol} trade deal with the EU without too much Conservative support falling off?
The second, separate, question is whether that trade deal will keep trade frictions gentle enough that industry can continue to thrive? That, frankly, remains to be seen.
Business will adapt, it always does. Haven't you noticed that since the government secured a majority, the wailing from business has largely subsided.
As I have said many times, an 80 majority means almost any policy can be decided in No 10 and supported by the parliamentary party. The exception to that would be reneging on the manifesto promises relating to Brexit.
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
The reality, however, is that the majority of the public agree, if not with the position held and advocated by the so called TERFs, then with their sentiments.
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?
I honestly don't care. I hardly think my life is of much interest to MI5 or any other government agency.
Now, if I was breaking the law I might be more bothered but since the law enforcement agencies seem unable to make many inroads into the numerous criminal gangs and cartels that operate throughout the UK, I'd probably still feel fairly unconcerened.
Cash vs card makes me laugh; in my trade many people prefer cheques!
Some conversion to bank transfers during the lockdown, but it won't ever be 100% amongst my customers until the day cheques are phased out (which I hope is never, they're quite useful).
I've been using card much more - but largely because far more places in Dorset are now encouraging card. I much prefer it in the shop, as otherwise I have to go to the bank with it. Smaller retailers are gradually seeing the benefits. I suspect greater usage will also result in more competition and lower transaction fees.
Oh, and of course it is no business of the government to mandate what form of payment is accepted. Plenty of places I visit have been card only for years....
Only time yours truly usual uses a check (or czech if you prefer) is when I pay rent for my humble abode.
Incidentally, am still using checks issued by bank that went belly up in 2008-09 and were gobbled up by another fine fiscal institution. Anyway, just before its demise the first bank sent me enough checks to last a LONG time; the landlord's never said a word, and the successor bank honors them
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
There's a great big seagull across the road from my study. I think he is hungry because lack of garbage left by people eating burgers, etc, so he has turned to brutal predation.
Every day he hunts down a live pigeon, skewers it, kills it, then eats it, ripping out its warm guts. The pigeons themselves are probably a bit hungry and sleepy, because they also lack normal food, so they are easy to hunt down.
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
I agree re shops - still sub 5% wearing them in my town visit today.
Incidentally, do I fall into this #ExcludedUK category - because I largely pay myself by dividends? I've seen lots of noise about it on Twitter but not much elsewhere. If it does include the likes of me, then in a way the Treasury has called it right. I am and should be able to support myself without the need for my profits to be made good by the government. Very, very difficult for those who fall through the cracks - new starters, new businesses, those between jobs etc. Can their really be millions in this category, though?
Don’t really know what Labour can/should do tbh? How do they break through?
Labour are in a catch-22 situation because anything they do to win back Red Wall voters will annoy their current core vote in the big cities and university towns, and vice versa. Win Blyth Valley, lose Canterbury. Or gain Chipping Barnet and lose Sunderland.
Sounds about right. Labour has three problems. Firstly, the Tories are (thanks to the cumulative efforts of Cameron and Johnson) closer to the cultural centre of the electorate than Labour is and, owing to societal change and the resolution of Brexit, there's no significant political force remaining to their right. You're hardly going to get a Ukip successor making hay out of immigration, for example, when (a) the Tories are already pledged to end open borders with everywhere except Ireland and (b) attitudes to the topic have liberalised considerably since 2016, so the fact of control appears sufficient and, to the extent that it still commands any interest, voters seem more bothered about quality than quantity. Nigel Farage has been trying to raise interest in the Calais migrants and their dinghies, which will still concern a lot of people, but I would venture to suggest that there's no major constituency left in the country that is so innervated over immigration that they're ready to flock to a "pull up the drawbridge" movement. Ditto a return to the death penalty and a number of other divisive social controversies from which we have now moved on.
Secondly, Labour has gone way off into Guardianland and is also opposed both by established parties capable of attacking it from further to the liberal left, and internally by the wounded Corbynites. As you say, if it tries to close the gap with the Tories (e.g. by making any form of statement sympathetic to the police or border controls) then it risks losing Southern marginals by having some of its more radical supporters scream betrayal over anti-social media and then sit on their hands, defect to the Lib Dems or Greens, or run off to join or found leftist splinter groups.
Thirdly, if Labour shows any signs of a serious revival then the Scottish problem comes back to bite it. A lot of the Red Wall voters it's trying to get back will be repelled by the threat of a Labour minority propped up by Scottish nationalists.
I'm not saying that Labour is incapable of getting back into power - it has a long time to address its weaknesses, and there's still plenty of room for things to go very badly wrong indeed for the Tories - but they have a huge mountain to climb and (given the Scottish situation) would need a swing greater than in 1997 to reach an outright Commons majority of one. As I suggested earlier this evening, if the Government can get out the other end of this pandemic without sustaining critical economic damage (and, consequently, Sunak can keep his reputation substantially intact, and we can recover the lost output in good time for the next General Election,) then the Conservatives should be able to keep a meaningful lead in popular opinion and will be favourites to win again.
Of course, that "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting...
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed again
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
As is clear all Starmer has done is regain some Remainers who switched to the LDs in 2019 having voted Labour in 2017.
He is still yet to make any inroads into the Tory vote and in my view will not do unless we go to WTO terms Brexit in which case some Tory Remainers might switch to Labour or the LDs and some Labour 2017 to Tory 2019 switchers might switch back
As the WTO explained to the hard of thinking we can't "go to WTO terms" without a massive and nasty change in trading practice. If we do that, the Lab to Con switchers won't be rewarding you with their vote. And you sneering "you voted for it" won't swing the argument. Though if you want to come up hear door knocking with that message can I watch?
And in want way does that contradict anything I said? I said the only thing that might change voting intention is a WTO terms Brexit
Oh sure, you're saying it. Tonight. The rest if the time it's the Essicksinnit up north insist on the hardest of hard Brexit and we must impose it on them for their own good for the good of the Conservative Party.
You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
That user is very good on polling but anything else is like talking to a Tory bot, a bit of a waste of time in my view
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
You aren't a Tory though. I think the mass of PB Tories have been very clear on that front...
A few like Philip Thompson, who voted for New Labour at least once and is a libertarian not a conservative and BigG, who voted for New Labour twice may have said that but I do not consider either of them true Tories as they do not always vote for the party
I do not give a fig what you consider.
More often than not you embarrass the party on this forum and by the way your membership is no more valid than mine
Put a sock in it
I did not start the argument, I was just refuting the point by pointing out it is a bit rich to not be called a Tory by people who do not always even vote Tory
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed again
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crap
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
@LadyG if you do a google search on "is the Guardian in financial trouble" you'll get results predicting its imminent demise from every year in the past decade.
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.
There's a great big seagull across the road from my study. I think he is hungry because lack of garbage left by people eating burgers, etc, so he has turned to brutal predation.
Every day he hunts down a live pigeon, skewers it, kills it, then eats it, ripping out its warm guts. The pigeons themselves are probably a bit hungry and sleepy, because they also lack normal food, so they are easy to hunt down.
It is horrible yet fascinating to watch
I saved a pigeon from being run over the other day, clearly they need protection from seagulls too
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
Good grief, that really is.
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
I've been trying to educate myself, and this is my (possibly silly!) interpretation.
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
There are millions of TERFS? They are a subset, and a smallish one, of feminists. Although heavily funded by the Evangelical right. And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new. What is it then? The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
There aren't millions of TERFS (also a very unpleasant word) but there are clearly millions of women, and many of them are quite angry about the way a justifiable fight for Trans rights has been turned into something more sinister and aggressive, and something which seems to diminish women's rights.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
The only thing that I have paid cash for in the last 4 months has been fish and chips from the van. People are simply not going to bother going back to cash.
I always pay cash, I have shopped in all the same places no problem. I suspect you always used card anyway and I am sure if you had tendered cash it would have been accepted
Why though? What advantage do you see in using cash?
I do it as a personal stand on principle because I think the continuing use of physical money is a safe guard against an over mighty state. I am not claiming we have one currently but I cannot predict the elections of the next 100 years. Already your movements are tracked and recorded by anpr, who you converse with is stored for state inspection, you movements on foot tracked by cctv.....do we really want to be in a position where every transaction can likewise be tallied?
Paper money controlled by the very government you're afraid of? What's to stop them from invalidating it?
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed again
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crap
If the only way you will shop is without a facemask thus increasing the risk of spreading the virus probably best you stay shopping online permanently
On Topic - Tim Shipman's lengthy article in tomorrow's paper goes a good way to explaining this polling, IMO. This is a government sticking to its manifesto, which was popular, and delivering solutions (especially from the Treasury) as well as it can. I think the public are far more forgiving than us activists ever give them credit for, especially in unprecedented emergency situations.
How can I put this - despite the 20k unneccesarry deaths and the millions of #ExcludedUK for most normal people the government have done more than enough to be given a chance. Too many commentators point to the people on the edges and say THIS IS AWFUL thinking everyone else agrees or cares - they don't.
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Already pointed out the imposition of masks if enforced by shops will stop me shopping there and I will move my food shopping to amazon, already tested it and thats 100£ a week from the local economy and into amazons coffers who as we keep getting told pay no tax so a loss for hmrc too.
You could easily use Occado and better to enforce safe shopping with compulsory facemasks than increase the chance of a second peak and second lockdown and most shops being closed again
Why would I want to use Occado when I can use amazon its not only overpriced but pays tax. I object to the ruling therefore I will revolt and cause as much loss of income to hmrc as I can. Plus occado is pretty crap
Comments
"Fifty Shades of Grey grossed US$166.2 million in the US and Canada and US$404.8 million in other countries, for a worldwide total of US$571 million against a budget of US$40 million."
Taxes will go up, because revenues will have gone down, but most of the spending has been in one time Covid programmes
One other good reason for electronic only payments is that it prevents lightfingered bar staff from helping themselves.
The Guardian's REAL problem, it seems, is with female readers, who have been enraged by their coverage of Trans issues
The ratio of female anger and loathing beneath this rather lame, apologetic tweet, from a Guardian writer, is astonishing.
https://twitter.com/ben_bt/status/1283704957921894401
This isn't just a few cranks on Twitter, this is thousands of women. There is much more like this, out there.
There seems to be a lot less noise coming out of sub-Saharan Africa, South Africa excepted, so hopefully they're managing to stay on top of this. African countries don't have OECD levels of medical care but they have a lot of experience in combating epidemic disease, and may therefore transpire to be capable of mounting a better defence than many developed states to this particular threat.
https://twitter.com/foxinsoxuk/status/1284583832239460365?s=09
'I should have been told to wait': Woman treated with hormone blockers to reassign gender as a teenager takes NHS to court
Western countries need to be offering any assistance they can to those on the ground in these places - who as you say, often do have experience with containing infectious disease.
We also need to stop incoming traffic, yesterday, unless they’ve been tested or quarantined.
No reason authors cannot do both too
Sunak is clearly betting the bank on a quick return to normal. If he gets that, the Tories will probably replace Johnson before the next election, which they’ll then win. If he doesn’t get it, things get a lot more interesting.
If our business is anything to go by, it’s going to be a very tough few years. Sunak will have to spend a pile more - and soon.
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/?utm_campaign=homeAdvegas1?
They honestly think the word cis sends them back to the 1950s and can't accommodate the advances in womens' rights or the variety of women's lives. I've missed where such an interpretation of what seems to me a useful and basic distinguisher particular to.discussing trans issues comes from, quite how it became so, so toxic and offensive.
Of course, only a minority of works live long in the cultural memory, and a number of those were box office flops.
Its up to businesses what they want to accept. If they don't want to handle cash - and there are a plethora of good reasons why they wouldn't want to - then why should Big Brother in Parliament dictate that companies must accept cash when they don't want to?
These angry feminists - and yes, there are millions - think that "cis" is deeply offensive and derogatory, because
1. it is used as slur - and it is. Angry trans people, and others in the debate, will say "oh feck off you pathetic CIS"
2. they believe it reduces biological women to a subset of their own gender. eg Trans woman are WOMEN, just "women", but women have to be"CIS women"
They hate Cis. And I think I can tell why, in this furiously complex and poisoned debate.
Either way, the Guardian now have a massive problem.
If our post-Brexit future really does have lots of positives, and negatives confined to people we don't really care about, then the government wins next time, and (ghastly as they are) deservedly so.
If it doesn't, or even if it's a curate's egg (the losers will be much more unhappy than the winners are happy), then the Johnson miracle coalition could fracture pretty thoroughly.
However, there are also cash deserts in rural areas too.
Let me put it this way - go to any food court at any mall, say Westfield Stratford, you will see that McDonald's always has the longest queue, as compared to the other food outlets. Popularity doesn't equal greatness.
It seems like the left and woke are eating themselves
Jobs, jobs, jobs.
And it is at its worst in the UK, apparently.
The amazing thing is that careers are being ruined and media companies endangered, in the fall out from an argument which is so niche only about 8 people truly understand it. Like you, I am not one of them.
If businesses don't want to take cash then cash only customers can take their business elsewhere.
You think its "libertarian" to have Big Brother dictate to business what they must and must not take?
I am not saying to compel people to take cards. Nor am I saying to compel people to take cash. People should take what they want to take and refuse what they want to refuse. That is right wing and liberal, you are the bleeding lefty wanting the state interfering in business operations.
https://twitter.com/PippaN15/status/1284539475817836544?s=20
There will be some resistance from people who like to use our pretend money in physical form. Me, happy to use contactless on everything if possible. By Google Pay preferably
The essence of libertarianism which you seem to neglect is not no state intervention, but the minimum state intervention to ensure a free society. You are arguing against that
for their own goodfor the good of the Conservative Party.You remain utterly utterly clueless on this subject despite endlessly posting on it like you know
Indeed it reaches the point that the currency that the transaction takes place in becomes irrelevant. The pound Sterling will vanish not with a bang, but with a whimper.
You can still end free movement and have a trade deal with the EU, though it would require Boris to concede some regulatory alignment
Yes such a waste of time listening to a Tory, they are a tiny fraction of irrelevance, just 44% of the electorate after all (though thanks for the polling comments)
If those older purple wall voters decide to stick home after Brexit then the job is near done.
You'll be telling us next that the country is about to descend into anarchy because a statue has been toppled in Bristol.
And that's okay, I just don't think your views are very helpful. It's the swing voters that matter.
The original trilogy is clearly the best but in some ways the prequels are better than the new lot.
The second, separate, question is whether that trade deal will keep trade frictions gentle enough that industry can continue to thrive? That, frankly, remains to be seen.
Some conversion to bank transfers during the lockdown, but it won't ever be 100% amongst my customers until the day cheques are phased out (which I hope is never, they're quite useful).
I've been using card much more - but largely because far more places in Dorset are now encouraging card. I much prefer it in the shop, as otherwise I have to go to the bank with it. Smaller retailers are gradually seeing the benefits. I suspect greater usage will also result in more competition and lower transaction fees.
Oh, and of course it is no business of the government to mandate what form of payment is accepted. Plenty of places I visit have been card only for years....
And I don't know where you have been but this has been going on 're Guardian for a decade, so it isn't very new.
What is it then?
The new talking point of the Right since statues didn't cause a race war.
More often than not you embarrass the party on this forum and by the way your membership is no more valid than mine
Put a sock in it
As I have said many times, an 80 majority means almost any policy can be decided in No 10 and supported by the parliamentary party. The exception to that would be reneging on the manifesto promises relating to Brexit.
And it is worldwide. See the huge furore over Navratilova in the USA
And yes of course this emerges NOW, in relation to the Gaurdian, because it is only now that the Guardian is suddenly in real financial trouble (last year they made a profit), and therefore turnng to its readers for help.
And they are finding that a lot of readers are no longer willing to help out, because of things like this. See another mad debate here
https://twitter.com/davidschneider/status/1284391390173106178?s=20
Polling at the moment feels rather futile. The Rona wasn't Black Wednesday or the financial crash with a crisis point that quickly recedes into the past. This thing is still here, things aren't going back to normal no matter how many times ministers try to say it is.
Anecdotage. Went into Aldi mid afternoon. It's a Saturday so in the middle of lockdown that would have meant a queue down the car park. However, crowd mitigation and one way measures have largely been abandoned by supermarkets, so Aldi was *full*. Perhaps 15% of punters had masks or were trying to keep apart. They will be in for a real culture shock when it finally gets imposed next Friday. At which point I expect the inconvenience will encourage people to avoid the shops like the plague again.
Now, if I was breaking the law I might be more bothered but since the law enforcement agencies seem unable to make many inroads into the numerous criminal gangs and cartels that operate throughout the UK, I'd probably still feel fairly unconcerened.
Incidentally, am still using checks issued by bank that went belly up in 2008-09 and were gobbled up by another fine fiscal institution. Anyway, just before its demise the first bank sent me enough checks to last a LONG time; the landlord's never said a word, and the successor bank honors them
There's a great big seagull across the road from my study. I think he is hungry because lack of garbage left by people eating burgers, etc, so he has turned to brutal predation.
Every day he hunts down a live pigeon, skewers it, kills it, then eats it, ripping out its warm guts. The pigeons themselves are probably a bit hungry and sleepy, because they also lack normal food, so they are easy to hunt down.
It is horrible yet fascinating to watch
Incidentally, do I fall into this #ExcludedUK category - because I largely pay myself by dividends? I've seen lots of noise about it on Twitter but not much elsewhere. If it does include the likes of me, then in a way the Treasury has called it right. I am and should be able to support myself without the need for my profits to be made good by the government. Very, very difficult for those who fall through the cracks - new starters, new businesses, those between jobs etc. Can their really be millions in this category, though?
Secondly, Labour has gone way off into Guardianland and is also opposed both by established parties capable of attacking it from further to the liberal left, and internally by the wounded Corbynites. As you say, if it tries to close the gap with the Tories (e.g. by making any form of statement sympathetic to the police or border controls) then it risks losing Southern marginals by having some of its more radical supporters scream betrayal over anti-social media and then sit on their hands, defect to the Lib Dems or Greens, or run off to join or found leftist splinter groups.
Thirdly, if Labour shows any signs of a serious revival then the Scottish problem comes back to bite it. A lot of the Red Wall voters it's trying to get back will be repelled by the threat of a Labour minority propped up by Scottish nationalists.
I'm not saying that Labour is incapable of getting back into power - it has a long time to address its weaknesses, and there's still plenty of room for things to go very badly wrong indeed for the Tories - but they have a huge mountain to climb and (given the Scottish situation) would need a swing greater than in 1997 to reach an outright Commons majority of one. As I suggested earlier this evening, if the Government can get out the other end of this pandemic without sustaining critical economic damage (and, consequently, Sunak can keep his reputation substantially intact, and we can recover the lost output in good time for the next General Election,) then the Conservatives should be able to keep a meaningful lead in popular opinion and will be favourites to win again.
Of course, that "if" is doing a lot of heavy lifting...
In truth, it, like all other print media, is stuggling against a long-term move away from newpaper reading.
Will it survive? Who knows.
If it falls, will its demise be caused by its stance on gender politics? No.