"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
I do find it remarkable how badly HYUFD reads things he doesn't understand.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU, given we left the EU in January if Brexit was decisive on the Union then Yes should be over 60% already including Don't Knows.
It isn't as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and more LD Unionist voters voted Remain than SNP voters
We left with a transition agreement the currently runs until December 31st.
Come January 1st 2021 the French will start to be able to play a game of paperwork city with our exports and nothing will have the correct paperwork...
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
I do find it remarkable how badly HYUFD reads things he doesn't understand.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU, given we left the EU in January if Brexit was decisive on the Union then Yes should be over 60% already including Don't Knows.
It isn't as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and more LD Unionist voters voted Remain than SNP voters
We left with a transition agreement the currently runs until December 31st.
Come January 1st 2021 the French will start to be able to play a game of paperwork city with our exports and nothing will have the correct paperwork...
Yes, and if they do we can and will retailiate against French exports to the UK. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
The LDs seem to lurch from one trough to another - the postponement of this year's locals was probably to their benefit (just) but they havent really gone anywhere since Dec 2019. Starmer as leader will be tricky to counter and in the SW where I watch events... things seem dire. Davey (or Moran) will need more than a rabbit out of a hat come the Autumn.....
They need the governing party to do something unpopular - the equivalent of the poll tax or invading Iraq. And governing parties usually do something unpopular at some point or another. (It may not, of course, be the LDs who benefit, but if their leader is Davey, and if the Greens continue to be invisible, and if the Brexit Party isn't around, then they will be in a good position to get the traditional NOTA vote.)
I'm not really sure who you think the traditional NOTA vote is? It was pretty clear when the LDs collapsed after going into coalition that there was a large shift in the NOTA vote from LD -> UKIP. NOTA is disproportionately people who feel relatively disengaged from mainstream politics, principally lower incomes and more Brexity than average. It was precisely this bloc that the Brexiteers went after.
The Lib Dems have spent the last few years making themselves anathema to this section of society. Unless you are imagining some new bloc of NOTA voters?
Agreed 100%
The rise of UKIP was primarily an LD -> UKIP swing, not a swing from the other parties to UKIP masked by an LD -> other parties making up for it.
Indeed, there's a reason that in the last couple of elections the vote for parties other than Conservative or Labour has been lower than the recent past. The old LD NOTA vote from when they were fairly inoffensive has gone via UKIP and finally broke for the Conservatives. Now the NOTA may not hang around, but the idea that the LDs in their current form are in a good position to win them back is...brave.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
Specific to Ocado they are also contending with the switchover to M&S as well, I expect once they have successfully navigated that they will begin to increase delivery capacity.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
I imagine they have also to feel confident this is a permanent shift in behaviour even after the virus goes - whensoever that might be. We'd never ordered from a supermarket before lockdown. In hindsight that was a mistake.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
It depends where you live, up here all the local supermarkets are full of pickers...
AS ever it depends on context , in Ayrshire it is increase from 0/1 to 2 so hardly a big deal. I bet most others are the same apart from the two clusters which are 90%+ of the increases. London propaganda to take heat of their own numbers.
I completely agree Malcolm that percentages are meaningless when we are dealing with such small numbers. Still pretty funny that Aberdeenshire has the biggest percentage decrease in Scotland though.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
Morrisons is also in-store fulfilment. This changed in April, IIRC (we've been using them since September or so last year, was distribution centre at that point). Getting slots got much easier in April and it's now mostly via relatively new staff (from chatting to them) in rented, unmarked, vans.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
It depends where you live, up here all the local supermarkets are full of pickers...
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
"Austerity" (a crap name) isn`t right wing politics. It was essential to repair the nation`s finances following the crash. What position would we have been in if the country wasn`t in a decent financial state to respond to the financial challenges caused by the pandemic? Goodness knows the shit we would be in if Corbyn had won in 2017.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
Boris has chucked austerity now anyway, hence at GE19 Tory losses outside Scotland came in wealthy Remain seats like Richmond Park, St Albans and Putney while Tory gains came mainly in working class Labour Leave seats in the Midlands, North and Wales.
I had lunch with my parents yesterday and my fiscally conservative father was surprisingly positive about Starmer, though he had been very negative about Corbyn and pretty dismissive about Boris and the level of national debt
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
I have always thought the last movement of that symphony was embarrassingly pompous, overblown nonsense*, so it sits quite well with Land of Hope and Glory and Britannia. Perhaps put all that lot on the last night and than cut the season short on the penultimate one? Just the sort of lovable eccenticity the Proms is known for.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
I do find it remarkable how badly HYUFD reads things he doesn't understand.
If he thinks Scotland is a problem for Boris at the moment wait until next May - I suspect once Brexit hits leaving the UK to return to the EU will be a viewpoint 60% of the Scottish electorate will be happily vote for...
62% of Scots voted to Remain in the EU, given we left the EU in January if Brexit was decisive on the Union then Yes should be over 60% already including Don't Knows.
It isn't as over a third of SNP voters voted Leave and more LD Unionist voters voted Remain than SNP voters
Yes, I'm always surprised by how little effect Brexit had on the support for independence if you look at the polling figures in 2016 and 2017. That shows how hollow the "change of circumstances" argument is.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
Indeed where I live there is no Tesco supermarket, we have two mini Tesco convenience stores not far from here (and not far from each other oddly enough) but no proper supermarket. But we can get full deliveries from them.
ASDA on the other hand when we were getting deliveries from them were coming from the stores. We stopped ordering from ASDA because it was impossible to get a slot for them long past the point slots were easily available from Tesco - and have noticed that since switching to Tesco with orders coming from its distribution centre we are seeing far, far fewer substitutions than we were getting from ASDA with orders coming from its local supermarket.
When we ordered from ASDA, even pre-COVID and pre-panic buying it wouldn't be unusual to get 4-5 substitutions per week, not having any was unheard of. Most weeks from Tesco we aren't getting anyway.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
Because the tories have an 80 seat majority I expect.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
You mean like selling council houses?
Selling was an excellent policy - mixing up housing helps prevent the problems of Council run monolithic blocks of housing.
The failure was in not building replacements.
I agree, though I fear that if councils had been allowed to build new housing they would have built terrible slums like they did in the 60s.
Housing policy has probably been the greatest post-war failure of any policy area - amongst some stiff competition. You had a combination of disastrous brutalist architectural fashions, town planners who didn't really know what they were doing, governments and councils needing to to everything on the cheap, tight regulation of land and speculative builders who don't care if the houses they build fall apart after they're sold. A catastrophic mix.
Near me, there's a huge, 50s and 60s built council estate, one of the largest in the country, that was such a disaster that they've had to spend a fortune pulling it down and putting up better flats over the last ten years, while of course all the Victorian and inter-war housing nearby, public and private, trades at huge premiums.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
The patriotic sequence was (rightly) abandoned in September 2001. There's a point where you have to say "we may love these songs, but this isn't the right time to sing them". Is 2020 the right time? Especially given that there won't be the normal audience? Maybe, maybe not. (Perhaps we should have them sung in the style of a John Lewis Christmas advert). It's certainly a reasonable musical question.
A wise PM would have said "it's up to Radio 3". But we don't have one of those.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
Because the tories have an 80 seat majority I expect.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
Yes absolutely agreed. Councils should have been forced to spend the money generated from RTB on new housing in the area or go to a hypothecated central fund if there is no capacity available in the local area.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
Indeed where I live there is no Tesco supermarket, we have two mini Tesco convenience stores not far from here (and not far from each other oddly enough) but no proper supermarket. But we can get full deliveries from them.
ASDA on the other hand when we were getting deliveries from them were coming from the stores. We stopped ordering from ASDA because it was impossible to get a slot for them long past the point slots were easily available from Tesco - and have noticed that since switching to Tesco with orders coming from its distribution centre we are seeing far, far fewer substitutions than we were getting from ASDA with orders coming from its local supermarket.
When we ordered from ASDA, even pre-COVID and pre-panic buying it wouldn't be unusual to get 4-5 substitutions per week, not having any was unheard of. Most weeks from Tesco we aren't getting anyway.
Asda stock control (at least here in Edinburgh) has always been whack even before Covid. Going into their store for a specific item was basically playing Russian Roulette. Items would disappear from the shelves for days or even weeks at a time
Goodwin is obsessed with Brexit, every poll is in regards to Leavers/Remainers.
How about we stop dividing people by how they voted, I've moved on from Brexit, all about the trade deal now, Brexit is over, we left
Brexit is the defining political event of this generation. We will be seeing everything through that lens for at least another couple of electoral cycles.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
Morrisons is also in-store fulfilment. This changed in April, IIRC (we've been using them since September or so last year, was distribution centre at that point). Getting slots got much easier in April and it's now mostly via relatively new staff (from chatting to them) in rented, unmarked, vans.
Morissons seem to be expanding very quickly with Amazon prime now, the free delivery is going to make them very popular where prime now is available.
Goodwin is obsessed with Brexit, every poll is in regards to Leavers/Remainers.
How about we stop dividing people by how they voted, I've moved on from Brexit, all about the trade deal now, Brexit is over, we left
Brexit is the defining political event of this generation. We will be seeing everything through that lens for at least another couple of electoral cycles.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
That would be a cardinal mistake.
If ydoethur si not working , he will be along any minute
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Tbf, that debt ratio will fall fairly rapidly as the economy grows in the next few months.
Uber is almost certainly going to go bankrupt, I don't know who is investing in them but they've bet their entire future on driverless cars but they don't seem to get that making an app is not difficult, any of their competitors could do it
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Tbf, that debt ratio will fall fairly rapidly as the economy grows in the next few months.
Well if it's higher than when the Tories took over in 2010, or the same, for consistency austerity must be supported.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
Of course incumbent President Grover Cleveland lost the 1888 election to Benjamin Harrison, won his party's nomination again in 1892 and beat then President Harrison in the rematch to complete a second term
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
Specific to Ocado they are also contending with the switchover to M&S as well, I expect once they have successfully navigated that they will begin to increase delivery capacity.
Unbelievable that M&S were so tardy in getting online, they have run the clothes side like crap for years and having an unbelievable opportunity with food are years behind the market. How do they pick their management.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
They will shortly. Austerity needs to return once growth resumes.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
The penultimate night fine but the last night should stay as is
Why?
As otherwise it ceases to be last night and that is what the punters want, even most Remainers
Again, this will be correlated with age, rather than Remain/Leave as such. Are Yougov and idiots like Goodwin going to be tagging on irrelevant and misleading Leave/Remain percentages on every opinion poll about everything for the rest of time? Obsessed.
Uber is almost certainly going to go bankrupt, I don't know who is investing in them but they've bet their entire future on driverless cars but they don't seem to get that making an app is not difficult, any of their competitors could do it
There is nothing about Uber that makes them profitable with driverless cars.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Debt isn't the relevant metric, the deficit and the economic cycle are the two relevant metrics.
We aren't growing, we're in a recession. We weren't in a recession in 2010. Once the recession is behind us the deficit must be dealt with.
"Senior Tories" want Richard Leonard to resign to save BoZo's job, when in fact to save the Union BoZo should quit.
Labour needs to run a million miles from any kind of deal or pact with the Tories in Scotland
They have a coalition in Aberdeen. And more or less informally elsewhere.
I suppose Better Together in 2013-14 and the effects thereof count as a reason not to do it again, rather than an actual example!
Trouble is that Labour folk who thought working with the Tories in 2013-14 was a disastrous mistake left then, and rump SLab still sees it as the lesser of 2 evils. If the likes of Baillie or Murray take over they'd be quite open to the idea. Unfortunately for them up to 40% of their current voters don't agree.
It would obviously only be conceivable if the Tories had more MSPs than both Scottish Labour and the LDs and the SNP and Greens had lost their majority, in which case Ross would ask Scottish Labour and the Scottish LDs for confidence and supply support
You're forgetting
(a) the near certainty of a split in Labour (b) the existence of the new Alliance (which is a pro-indy party aiming at list seats)
At the end of the day as long as Labour votes down indyref2 at Holyrood making Ross FM is less important than a neutered Sturgeon. Personally I would be fine with Sturgeon staying as FM as long as there was no nationalist majority at Holyrood.
The new Alliance would only likely win a handful of seats at most and would be countered by Galloway's Alliance for the Union which is also standing for the list anyway
More chance of me being the Pope than your fantasy coming true
That would be a cardinal mistake.
If ydoethur si not working , he will be along any minute
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
They will shortly. Austerity needs to return once growth resumes.
Hopefully it won't because we went into this recession in much better shape than we went into the last one.
Uber is almost certainly going to go bankrupt, I don't know who is investing in them but they've bet their entire future on driverless cars but they don't seem to get that making an app is not difficult, any of their competitors could do it
There is nothing about Uber that makes them profitable with driverless cars.
No you're right - I am saying that is what they keep telling their investors.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
They will shortly. Austerity needs to return once growth resumes.
Hopefully it won't because we went into this recession in much better shape than we went into the last one.
Last week we passed the £2 trillion pound mark in National debt.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
It creates a shortage for the demographic who need council houses.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
It depends where you live, up here all the local supermarkets are full of pickers...
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
They will shortly. Austerity needs to return once growth resumes.
Hopefully it won't because we went into this recession in much better shape than we went into the last one.
Last week we passed the £2 trillion pound mark in National debt.
Which is both interesting and absolutely meaningless to the discussion at hand.
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
lots of richer landlords more like, given lots have been hoovered up for letting.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
Tesco to create 16,000 new jobs due to significant growth in its online business, including 3,000 new delivery drivers and 10,000 to pick orders from shelves
I wish Ocado would extract corporate digit and get some more. I've been on their waiting list for months. Ditto Waitrose.
A lot of places are at capacity. Adding extra customers isn't an option when it costs £ms to create the capacity required to support them
It does seem like it. Tescos presumably relies on their existing shelves in the public areas.
No, Tesco has gigantic distribution centres, they don't pick off the shelves for deliveries now. Neither does Sainsbury's, I think they do for some click and collect orders but deliveries are handled from distribution centres. I think Asda has an in-store fulfillment policy of the majors.
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
I imagine they have also to feel confident this is a permanent shift in behaviour even after the virus goes - whensoever that might be. We'd never ordered from a supermarket before lockdown. In hindsight that was a mistake.
Sainsbury in my area has been taking on more customers, including non-vulnerable ones, apparently by opening delivery slots up to 11pm. As a customer I appreciate it but I sympathise with the driver who said he wasn't loking forward to stumbling down garden paths with piles of deliveries in the dark come winter.
Uber is almost certainly going to go bankrupt, I don't know who is investing in them but they've bet their entire future on driverless cars but they don't seem to get that making an app is not difficult, any of their competitors could do it
Negative earnings per share still. Tesla is overvalued, but at least it does actually have positive EPS. Apple's 2 trillion valuation is actually quite modest on this basis - phones are a mature market compared to self driving vehicles, but still.
Uber is a taxi firm and that's a very mature market, simply can't see why it's worth what it is on any sane metric.
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Tbf, that debt ratio will fall fairly rapidly as the economy grows in the next few months.
Well if it's higher than when the Tories took over in 2010, or the same, for consistency austerity must be supported.
It really depends, as long as the debt ratio is falling austerity isn't necessary, if it's rising then it is.
Here's a current Trump video. It's an interesting contrast to the Lincoln Project ones we've seen - this follows the "It's the economy, stupid" line. Quite a bit of it is either misleading or out of conhtext, but American political adverts are utterly shameless, and this is no worse than usual, and I can see its appeal to working-class voters who simply want a working economy, and can put up with the President being personally a schmuck.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
Tories chose to enrich themselves and their chums rather than provide proper social housing.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
I want to know who is investing in Uber, it seems like an utterly terrible company in terms of every possible metric.
Except, it has accumulated a huge database of subscribers/users. What they do with it is the key. As we saw with Ocado, once you have the network, then you can monetise it. If you have a bright enough idea.
The difference is that Ocado pivoted fairly successful into being the technology provider, I'm not sure Uber can do that. They've not shown that ride hailing is a profitable business, even in developed markets like the US and UK.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Here's a current Trump video. It's an interesting contrast to the Lincoln Project ones we've seen - this follows the "It's the economy, stupid" line. Quite a bit of it is either misleading or out of conhtext, but American political adverts are utterly shameless, and this is no worse than usual, and I can see its appeal to working-class voters who simply want a working economy, and can put up with the President being personally a schmuck.
The Proms is the greatest music festival in the world, but the last night is dreadful. I think they should reinstate the tradition of concluding the penultimate night with Beethoven 9, That I always felt was the appropriate conclusion to a festival that has an ethos of internationalism and innovation at its heart.
So we could have a remainers last night and a leavers last night. Nothing like music bringing people together, nothing at all.
On purely musical grounds, Remainers win this one, I think. On the one hand you have the genius of Beethoven and on the other you have whoever-it-was and Rule Britannia.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
Elgar is whoever-it-was, Handel liked RB enough to nick some of it, and many discerning critics like me think that choral stuff is senile shite.
Isn't it Thompson? Elgar did Pomp and Circumstance.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
The Tories started the housing shortage with council home sales.
They should have built one for every one they sold
That's insane. Selling a Council house doesn't create a shortage as there's one fewer house available to the Council and one fewer family who needs one.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
The point is that there is one less house for poor people. Until we have a much more equal society, we are going to need subsidised housing paid for by the state, directly or indirectly.
This may not surprise but but I do not agree. I think subsidised housing is a disastrous policy that leaves people trapped.
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
There will always be unfortunate people who need housing but cannot work to the level of income needed. Either the government provides social housing or it pays out a lot in benefits to private landlords.
We have universal welfare in this country, no need for social housing too that leaves people trapped. If people are going through tough times deal with that on the income/welfare side not the housing side. Once you put people into social housing then there is a trap to stay there for life even if job opportunities etc exist elsewhere as may not be able to easily get a social house elsewhere quickly and easily. Rented housing is far more flexible.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
That Andrew Murray quote is very troubling indeed.
It doesn't surprise me.
For many Marxists race is only interesting in so much as it furthers their real goals on class.
It's left wing politics in a nutshell. They like their minorities poor and needy - permanently. If they aren't, they're not interested. It stands to reason really. No votes in it if they're not depending on the state in some way.
Right wing politics in a nutshell is helping the rich at the expense of every one else
Not at all - it's enabling the poor to become rich.
Doesn't seem to have worked out very well here recently. The poor feel the brunt of austerity, the rich just get richer.
But of course left wing politics is allowed to be called something it isn't by you (which was a load of nonsense) yet I'm not allowed to do the same for right wing politics.
The best and most successful politics is social democracy which I support.
Under the Tories young non-home owners are becoming home owners. The proportion of people owning their home is going up and the age at which people can do so is going down.
If that's not helping the poor become richer what is? If the Tories were looking after the rich the home ownership rates would be going down and the age of ownership would be going up as existing owners got wealthier but the young struggled ... Which is precisely what happened after thirteen years of Labour government.
The poor felt austerity the hardest, fact.
Your point is whataboutism and not relevant.
It's entirely relevant. The right wants to help the poor not be poor anymore so they don't need help anymore.
The left wants to help the poor just enough that they stay poor and stay needing help.
That's the difference between the philosophies
You're doing it again, not addressing the point I made. I said right wing politics makes the poor poorer. I presented austerity as evidence.
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
No you're making claims with no metric. "Austerity" is not evidence.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
So presumably you support austerity again? Or is it only when Labour are in Government
I support running a balanced budget over the economic cycle. I am OK with countercyclical borrowing during a crash, but after the crash the deficit needs to be addressed.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
A simple yes or no would do
Was it that complicated an answer?
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
Our deficit is over 100% of GDP, our national debt is higher than it ever was in 2010. So you're right it's not the same, it's worse
Tbf, that debt ratio will fall fairly rapidly as the economy grows in the next few months.
Well if it's higher than when the Tories took over in 2010, or the same, for consistency austerity must be supported.
No. The Tories needed to do austerity as even though the country was out of recession under Brown's mismanagement the debt ratio was still rising.
If post-COVID the debt ratio is falling the same situation does not exist and there is no need for austerity.
Austerity was a necessity not an ambition in its own right.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
He is.
Och, I'd never noticed.
In other news - any thoughts on how thje going back to school is going in Scotland? The usual suspects haven't found much to tweet with glee, appropriate ot otherwise, though it's too early to know the effect on infection rates.
Which would mean only a Starmer premiership could possibly lead to indyref2, zero chance whilst a Tory majority at Westminster even if an SNP and Green majority again at Holyrood next year
Only if you are an English supremacist in your political theory and practice. .
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
Westminster includes MPs from all 4 Home Nations, not just England.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
Comments
Come January 1st 2021 the French will start to be able to play a game of paperwork city with our exports and nothing will have the correct paperwork...
You have not addressed my point, instead whatabouting.
So, austerity made the poor poorer, justify it
It's why Tesco and Sainsbury's were struggling with capacity, they weren't simply able to but more vans and hire more in-store fulfillment people. They need to invest in more distribution which means more warehouses which takes months rather than days or weeks. Hopefully this kind of activity from Tesco will make up for job losses on the high street.
You mean like selling council houses?
Headline - 3
7 days - 2
Yesterday - 2
Anyone who can afford to buy their house is a Kulak. We all know what to do about the Kulaks, eh Komrade?
I had lunch with my parents yesterday and my fiscally conservative father was surprisingly positive about Starmer, though he had been very negative about Corbyn and pretty dismissive about Boris and the level of national debt
*Verdi thought so too.
Oh noes. I typed a full stop.
Hope no one feels traumatised.
A one off bribe which would have been fine if the councils could have used the money to replace them.
Austerity was necessary because the Brown government had overspent so much he was burdening our generation with a lifetime of debt hangover. The Tories dealt with it, helping the young, rather than borrowing more and simply passing the buck to next generations like Labour wanted to do.
Furthermore you've provided no evidence that "austerity" hurt the poor. I provided counter-evidence that under the Tories in recent years home ownership rates are going up and home ownership ages are going down, that is evidence of the poor becoming richer as people who didn't own homes now can. Specific, measurable evidence.
Selling was an excellent policy - mixing up housing helps prevent the problems of Council run monolithic blocks of housing.
The failure was in not building replacements.
But did you have to put a photo of your pussy on the thread?
They should have built one for every one they sold
ASDA on the other hand when we were getting deliveries from them were coming from the stores. We stopped ordering from ASDA because it was impossible to get a slot for them long past the point slots were easily available from Tesco - and have noticed that since switching to Tesco with orders coming from its distribution centre we are seeing far, far fewer substitutions than we were getting from ASDA with orders coming from its local supermarket.
When we ordered from ASDA, even pre-COVID and pre-panic buying it wouldn't be unusual to get 4-5 substitutions per week, not having any was unheard of. Most weeks from Tesco we aren't getting anyway.
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/1286576186915790849?s=20
Adversity creates opportunity - jobs are lost and jobs are created all the time.
The Government should be embracing and empowering these changes - not trying to force everyone back to how things were pre- Covid.
Schools going back will give home working a huge boost and this should be part of the message.
How about we stop dividing people by how they voted, I've moved on from Brexit, all about the trade deal now, Brexit is over, we left
Housing policy has probably been the greatest post-war failure of any policy area - amongst some stiff competition. You had a combination of disastrous brutalist architectural fashions, town planners who didn't really know what they were doing, governments and councils needing to to everything on the cheap, tight regulation of land and speculative builders who don't care if the houses they build fall apart after they're sold. A catastrophic mix.
Near me, there's a huge, 50s and 60s built council estate, one of the largest in the country, that was such a disaster that they've had to spend a fortune pulling it down and putting up better flats over the last ten years, while of course all the Victorian and inter-war housing nearby, public and private, trades at huge premiums.
A wise PM would have said "it's up to Radio 3". But we don't have one of those.
The GFC crash was 2007/08 and the Tories didn't take over until 2010, 2-3 years later. 2-3 years from now if the budget deficit is running at £100bn per annum then yes I would support austerity as being necessary. Definitely yes.
If the same circumstances existed as existed in 2010 then yes.
Not now as they don't exist now.
What's created a shortage is having the population expand faster than house building. 🤦🏻♂️
FTTP would be a good start
We aren't growing, we're in a recession. We weren't in a recession in 2010. Once the recession is behind us the deficit must be dealt with.
Still if people want to pay a lot of money to wave flags, why not?
People should have their wages and be able to afford housing. If they can't afford housing, deal with the wage side of things not the housing.
Uber is a taxi firm and that's a very mature market, simply can't see why it's worth what it is on any sane metric.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnFQKLMa6J0&feature=youtu.be&utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_axiosam&stream=top
Edit: and for your information the 'English' refers to the preferred polity, rather than your birth, residence, location, or the registration address of your car.
People who can't afford to buy their own home should be able to rent one. If their wages need support to do so that is what the welfare system already offers. There is no justification or need for social housing.
If post-COVID the debt ratio is falling the same situation does not exist and there is no need for austerity.
Austerity was a necessity not an ambition in its own right.
In other news - any thoughts on how thje going back to school is going in Scotland? The usual suspects haven't found much to tweet with glee, appropriate ot otherwise, though it's too early to know the effect on infection rates.
On current polling Starmer will only become PM in 2024 with SNP MPs providing their support to him, if the Nationalists get a majority next year they can demand Starmer gives them indyref2 then as the price for their support.
Until then we have a big Tory majority which in the words of Ian Paisley will say to Sturgeon a firm 'No!!'. 'Never, Never, Never!!'
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pJ4SC-zDJfQ