So the NI manifesto breech isn't even to sort out social care. Some plan that Worzel has that he announced at the election. Wait a few years. Then a tax rise that may go to social care in a further 3 years off in the future.
Come on @hyufd. Tell us how all this is perfectly reasonable.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
Sounds like they had a no of colleagues ready to support - obvs Sajid Javid- but also Rob Jenrick, Kwasi Kwarteng, Grant Shapps and - apparently very vocally- Dominic Raab. But there were concerns raised including on breaking the manifesto by Jacob Rees Mogg & others on timing https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1435186985757515778
So the NI manifesto breech isn't even to sort out social care. Some plan that Worzel has that he announced at the election. Wait a few years. Then a tax rise that may go to social care in a further 3 years off in the future.
Come on @hyufd. Tell us how all this is perfectly reasonable.
@HYUFD told us he would oppose any rise over 1% only yesterday.
Today there's rumours the rise may be 1.25%
I wonder if that means HYUFD is going to oppose the rise today if so? Or if suddenly he'll "oppose any rise over 1.25%" instead? 🤔
And just like clockwork the editorials about how the NHS will need more than the £10bn have started being pumped out. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about healthcare provision differently.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
On reflection though, was the lack of 'native' alcohol why they and the other Native (North) Americans got hammered so quickly? And fleeced by the Europeans.
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
Johnson has certainly made the right decision in trying to do something about the care home problem, despite the fact that it sank Theresa May's election campaign in 2017.
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
You can't open a newspaper nowadays without reading about the distress of people unable to know the time of day because of those greedy folk with watches on both wrists..
On the pension lock, I'm at slight odds with @HYUFD - I don't think ending it will erode significantly pensioner support for the Tories simply because most will recognise that the formula calculations has created such a large distortion and that an 8.5% increase at this time would be far too much. Sure, if the Tories end the triple lock, that would be something different but a one-off suspension is justified.
Good god I have just liked 2 of your post and have you seen who else has liked them. You going a bit soft?
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
On reflection though, was the lack of 'native' alcohol why they and the other Native (North) Americans got hammered so quickly? And fleeced by the Europeans.
Sadly its believed to be, yes, part of the reason why Aborigines have such alcohol problems as well.
Whether that's true or not, or if there's other cultural or socioeconomic issues is harder to tell, but its certainly believed to be a factor.
So the NI manifesto breech isn't even to sort out social care. Some plan that Worzel has that he announced at the election. Wait a few years. Then a tax rise that may go to social care in a further 3 years off in the future.
Come on @hyufd. Tell us how all this is perfectly reasonable.
So he's breaching the promise he made on the steps of No 10 the day he was elected?
Also - how on earth is this going to preserve the houses of the voters of Epping, for instance, from being seized to pay for their dementia?
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-6) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
Over my adult life the national insurance rate has more than doubled from 5.75% to 12% and is set to go higher today. Over the same period the basic rate of income tax has fallen from 34% to 20%. That tells you a lot about the politics of taxation.
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
A residence is essential, a watch or TV isn’t and are not jn short supply.
The bigger issue is that nobody prevents new watches, TVs etc from being manufactured.
However unless Planning Permission is abolished as I would want and anyone can build any home, relatively close to anywhere, on demand without seeking permission first the same is not true for houses.
Either you believe in a free market for houses or you don't, but if you do we need to abolish the requirement for planning permission. Make the market truly free.
Johnson has certainly made the right decision in trying to do something about the care home problem, despite the fact that it sank Theresa May's election campaign in 2017.
Is he actually trying, I'm suddenly wondering? He seems to be putting the money into the NHS rather than care, at least for the next 3 years.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
On reflection though, was the lack of 'native' alcohol why they and the other Native (North) Americans got hammered so quickly? And fleeced by the Europeans.
Sadly its believed to be, yes, part of the reason why Aborigines have such alcohol problems as well.
Whether that's true or not, or if there's other cultural or socioeconomic issues is harder to tell, but its certainly believed to be a factor.
Quite imagine that to be the case. Switching from being a regular beer drinker to drinking whisky, especially in reasonably large quantity is a sure way to get very drunk very quickly.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
That's true in all administrations, it has to be for collective responsibility to function.
The thing is that sometimes people have principles and stand up for them as for instance happened in May's administration where there was a revolving door in Cabinet of people resigning because they disagreed with her.
It seems not a single member of the Cabinet has enough principles to resign over this though.
Sure, if a cabinet member wishes to continue to object to a cabinet decision, they have to do it from outside the cabinet.
Johnson has always been different in two ways. One is that he does give the impression of confusing collective responsibility with questioning the boss- see the sacking of Julian Smith.
The other is that he is willing to overlook any other failing provided people are personally loyal to him- see Gavin Williamson for the most outstanding example.
But ultimately, of course none of them have enough principles to resign over this. To do that they would either need principles, or have the confidence that resigning over this would be a smart career move (Heseltine's resignation in 1986 was like that, I guess). Most of them must know that they're only in the cabinet because BoJo is a weak leader who can only manage by being surrounded by even weaker yesmen and yeswomen.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
Given this is a betting site, I guess we should be asking: is anyone about to resign?
Philip Thompson?
I don't work for the party, though like most of us here I have been an activist in the past, but I'm absolutely going to stop supporting them if this goes ahead today, yes. Unequivocally.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-2) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
I lived in Rochdale in the v. early 60's. Kashmiris were beginning to come to work in the mills, pretty well always on the night shifts.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
That's true in all administrations, it has to be for collective responsibility to function.
The thing is that sometimes people have principles and stand up for them as for instance happened in May's administration where there was a revolving door in Cabinet of people resigning because they disagreed with her.
It seems not a single member of the Cabinet has enough principles to resign over this though.
Sure, if a cabinet member wishes to continue to object to a cabinet decision, they have to do it from outside the cabinet.
Johnson has always been different in two ways. One is that he does give the impression of confusing collective responsibility with questioning the boss- see the sacking of Julian Smith.
The other is that he is willing to overlook any other failing provided people are personally loyal to him- see Gavin Williamson for the most outstanding example.
But ultimately, of course none of them have enough principles to resign over this. To do that they would either need principles, or have the confidence that resigning over this would be a smart career move (Heseltine's resignation in 1986 was like that, I guess). Most of them must know that they're only in the cabinet because BoJo is a weak leader who can only manage by being surrounded by even weaker yesmen and yeswomen.
I think we should give them the benefit of the doubt, at least until the announcement is made.
And just like clockwork the editorials about how the NHS will need more than the £10bn have started being pumped out. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about healthcare provision differently.
Oh we do - I always thought that social care was one of the things where if that improved the pressure on the NHS would drop (slightly).
There was an Centre for Policy Studies report regarding Manchester and it's attempts over the weekend to integrate the NHS and social care that claimed it hasn't worked.
I haven't read it yet as I find Centre for Policy Studies reports hard work as you need to identify the bias and have bigger priorities.
Quite encouraging for SKS. His numbers are improving as people become familiar more familiar with him and the Corbyn years slip into voters distant memory. That can't be said of Johnson. He's only got one way to go.
Encourging my arse
Is that a vegetable-themed variation on "fisting Norman Lamont"?
Talk about a red box….
(One of the funniest things ever said on live television, sad that Julian Clary got blacklisted for several years afterwards)
Over my adult life the national insurance rate has more than doubled from 5.75% to 12% and is set to go higher today. Over the same period the basic rate of income tax has fallen from 34% to 20%. That tells you a lot about the politics of taxation.
If he's the one in Wiki, that's 1980-date. One of the most interesting insights today, not least because almost all those years were Conservative governments, or Blairite (the odd Brown year or two aside).
One troll - a man in his early twenties from Saudi Arabia - sent Saka a number of monkey emojis on Instagram.
He also admits he knew what he was doing was racist: "It was a big mistake. I was angry and I didn't know when Saka saw the monkey what he would feel. I saw other people were typing the same emoji and I went with them.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-6) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
That would be my fault. Until a few years prior, night premium pay had been fully pensionable, and the night shifts staffed by mostly senior men in their late 50s, seeking to boost their 'final salary'. Unfortunately the consequences weren't good either for their health or pension fund finances, and the other side of the coin was that pensions for early shift delivery staff were rubbish. My life's work, over an alarming number of years and a few national strikes, was doing away with all that, which we finally did in 2000.
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
A residence is essential, a watch or TV isn’t and are not jn short supply.
The bigger issue is that nobody prevents new watches, TVs etc from being manufactured.
However unless Planning Permission is abolished as I would want and anyone can build any home, relatively close to anywhere, on demand without seeking permission first the same is not true for houses.
Either you believe in a free market for houses or you don't, but if you do we need to abolish the requirement for planning permission. Make the market truly free.
What does that solve? There are better approaches to increase house supply but there is also a big restriction, most builders are running at maximum capacity.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-6) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
That would be my fault. Until a few years prior, night premium pay had been fully pensionable, and the night shifts staffed by mostly senior men in their late 50s, seeking to boost their 'final salary'. Unfortunately the consequences weren't good either for their health or pension fund finances, and the other side of the coin was that pensions for early shift delivery staff were rubbish. My life's work, over an alarming number of years and a few national strikes, was doing away with all that, which we finally did in 2000.
I take it the impact to their health was enough to end up sick and retired with pension rather than dead (as in the latter case money would be saved).
And just like clockwork the editorials about how the NHS will need more than the £10bn have started being pumped out. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about healthcare provision differently.
The only way that the NHS backlog gets cleared in a reasonable time, is to replace BIK with tax breaks for companies offering private insurance to their employees, and allowing 100k or more work visas to staff temporary healthcare facilities for minor procedures.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-6) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
That would be my fault. Until a few years prior, night premium pay had been fully pensionable, and the night shifts staffed by mostly senior men in their late 50s, seeking to boost their 'final salary'. Unfortunately the consequences weren't good either for their health or pension fund finances, and the other side of the coin was that pensions for early shift delivery staff were rubbish. My life's work, over an alarming number of years and a few national strikes, was doing away with all that, which we finally did in 2000.
I take it the impact to their health was enough to end up sick and retired with pension rather than dead (as in the latter case money would be saved).
In some cases their wives were the real winners, spouses pensions being generous in a public sector DB scheme
Just looking at the numbers, merging NI and income tax works out as a pretty big tax cut for the working poor as you'd align the thresholds at £12.5k and offset those losses with the gains from taxing unearned income properly. Osborne had a golden opportunity to do it.
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
A residence is essential, a watch or TV isn’t and are not jn short supply.
The bigger issue is that nobody prevents new watches, TVs etc from being manufactured.
However unless Planning Permission is abolished as I would want and anyone can build any home, relatively close to anywhere, on demand without seeking permission first the same is not true for houses.
Either you believe in a free market for houses or you don't, but if you do we need to abolish the requirement for planning permission. Make the market truly free.
What does that solve? There are better approaches to increase house supply but there is also a big restriction, most builders are running at maximum capacity.
There's no such thing as maximum capacity. That's a myth.
If the market is free then there's fewer entry barriers to enter the market - currently getting permission is by far the biggest barrier to construction.
In many countries houses are built down to the individual home. If you want a house building you can pay contractors who will build it to spec for you. Instead of waiting for a developer to build an entire development of houses simultaneously.
If contractors or small building firms can compete with the developers then the developers will face more competition losing some of their profits and the capacity of construction would expand.
And just like clockwork the editorials about how the NHS will need more than the £10bn have started being pumped out. Maybe, just maybe, we need to think about healthcare provision differently.
The only way that the NHS backlog gets cleared in a reasonable time, is to replace BIK with tax breaks for companies offering private insurance to their employees, and allowing 100k or more work visas to staff temporary healthcare facilities for minor procedures.
This doesn’t clear the mental health backlog. Nor many complex specialist procedures. Nor those who don't work for big companies. But it might be a start.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
Around 20 years ago, I used to work, as agency staff, in a Royal Mail sorting depot. Taking incoming sacks of mail from cages and flinging them into other cages dependent on their post code. It was shift work. The day (6-2) and afternoon (2-10) shifts were largely made up off English people, me included. The night shifts (10-6) were largely made up of immigrants, I know because I picked a few up on overtime.
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
BiB: Perhaps, but Ricardian economics shows we're better off trading in that which we're competitive in not that which we're uncompetitive in.
If people cease to do uncompetitive jobs that don't justify higher wages, and instead switch to doing higher productivity, higher efficiency jobs instead then that is good for the people getting higher wages, good for HMRC getting more revenues and paying less in welfare, good for companies that the higher-wage consumer can now spend their money on and simply generally good for the economy.
Low-wage, low-efficiency, subsidised jobs harm the economy it doesn't help it.
Just looking at the numbers, merging NI and income tax works out as a pretty big tax cut for the working poor as you'd align the thresholds at £12.5k and offset those losses with the gains from taxing unearned income properly. Osborne had a golden opportunity to do it.
Far better to return NI to what it was created by Lloyd George to do ie fund unemployment insurance, the state pension and medical treatment and now state funded care
The other possibility is that Raab stands for another seat that isn't Esher. As the number of seats is increasing in the SE and with retirements, there should be enough decent seats to go round with some musical chairs.
For example, if May stands down in Maidenhead then the Windsor MP can move to Maidenhead. The Runnymede MP can then follow Egham into the Windsor seat and Raab can take Runnymede. Or Raab could chicken run to the brand new Farnham and Borden seat.
Is it morally right for some people to own more than one property when so many others can't afford even one?
Why stop at property? What about cars, TVs, watches etc ?
A residence is essential, a watch or TV isn’t and are not jn short supply.
The bigger issue is that nobody prevents new watches, TVs etc from being manufactured.
However unless Planning Permission is abolished as I would want and anyone can build any home, relatively close to anywhere, on demand without seeking permission first the same is not true for houses.
Either you believe in a free market for houses or you don't, but if you do we need to abolish the requirement for planning permission. Make the market truly free.
What does that solve? There are better approaches to increase house supply but there is also a big restriction, most builders are running at maximum capacity.
There's no such thing as maximum capacity. That's a myth.
If the market is free then there's fewer entry barriers to enter the market - currently getting permission is by far the biggest barrier to construction.
In many countries houses are built down to the individual home. If you want a house building you can pay contractors who will build it to spec for you. Instead of waiting for a developer to build an entire development of houses simultaneously.
If contractors or small building firms can compete with the developers then the developers will face more competition losing some of their profits and the capacity of construction would expand.
While I’m not quite as liberal as yourself on planning, there’s definitely a case for abolishing planning permission on single dwellings 10m high proposed by an individual. Get banks to offer self-build mortgages and encourage farmers to sell land half an acre at a time. Almost everywhere else in the world does this.
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
No injury, but pretty barbaric. I think he's daft, but politicians must be able to campaign without risk of violence.
Disgusting.
I don't agree with his politics but disagreements should be verbal not physical. I hope whoever did that is arrested and charged with assault.
There has been a concerted attempt to prevent Trudeau campaigning. I'm no great fan but there are signs it may backfire. Which would be good news. It puts the Tories on the back foot for a start, where they haven't been much, having to scramble to condemn it. Not least because it is seen as unCanadian. Verging on the American.
Coverage of this at the moment is shocking - clearly they're putting on employee NI but can anyone tell if the same rise will go on employer NI too?
Seems 1.2% on each
So a 2.4% tax rise on earned income if so. Which once the employers NI filters through to wages will reduce basic rate taxpayers take home pay by over 3.5% - even more for disposable income after mortgage/rent etc
No injury, but pretty barbaric. I think he's daft, but politicians must be able to campaign without risk of violence.
they should spend every waking minute in fear of the citizens
virtue without terror is impotent... robespierre
The result of that, is every senior politician having the security detail of the US President, never appearing in public except to a tightly vetted and searched audience.
Physical violence is never acceptable towards people standing for election.
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
No injury, but pretty barbaric. I think he's daft, but politicians must be able to campaign without risk of violence.
they should spend every waking minute in fear of the citizens
virtue without terror is impotent... robespierre
The result of that, is every senior politician having the security detail of the US President, never appearing in public except to a tightly vetted and searched audience.
Physical violence is never acceptable towards people standing for election.
It also leads to politicians being further 'out of touch' which is bad for politics.
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
King Cole, not sure. Languages can evolve in odd ways.
I think admiral means emir of the sea, and someone here once stated that blighty is, ultimately, derived from Arabic (ironically, so is alcohol, hence the 'al' at the start).
There’s a lovely linguistic theory about the word ‘alcohol’ - which is so pleasing I’ve never properly researched it, just in case it ain’t true
The theory is that ‘alcohol’ is the oldest word used by humans, as it can be traced all the way back - via primitive Arabic - to Sumerian, the first written language of all.
As a quasi-functional quasi-alcoholic I find this delightfully satisfying. In fact I may celebrate this fact, for the 78tj time, in a cafe in ancient Bellinzona, where I am now headed on a stupidly clean and efficient Swiss train
Another satisfying fact:
Throughout history only one society invented an alphabet unprompted (the Phoenicians) from which all other alphabets have evolved - all other unrelated societies that invented writing used pictograms instead.
However almost every society across the globe independently invented alcohol. The Australian Aborigines and Kiwi Maoris, and North American Inuit are the only exceptions I know of though there may be a few more it isn't many.
Alcohol is much more natural for humans than the alphabet is.
Some of the Native Aussies had alcohol. Used to do quite a dramatic lecture which started with skinning a kangaroo, filling the skin with water, flowers and fruits and leaving it in the sun. Students used to (ahem) lap it up. And I'm sure the Maori had some sort of fermented roots.
Is there any human society with NO form of intoxication? It is remarkably universal
Even the first Mormons got high
Little known fact: early Mormon pioneers drank a brew called ‘Mormon tea’, which was a tisane made from a desert shrub suffused with ephedrine-type stimulants
Yes; used to have to talk to student pharmacy technicians about such things; researching that was where I found the Native Australians skinning kangaroos (etc). All the societies I looked had some form of happy, get away from the day's cares 'drug;. Had some Saudi students once though who swore that they didn't. Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
On reflection though, was the lack of 'native' alcohol why they and the other Native (North) Americans got hammered so quickly? And fleeced by the Europeans.
Yes, therefore lack of enzyme to break it down. So once they get drunk they stay that way.
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
This has been said many, many times over history. From the Luddites onwards, people have been afraid of machines taking their jobs. Yet, oddly, increasing numbers of jobs have been created, albeit shifted around the workspace.
You predicted that the rise of autonomous vehicles meant that nobody would be driving lorries within ten years. That prediction was made seven or eight years ago, and is no nearer fruition now than it was then. In fact, as the current driver shortage shows there is a massive demand for them. You were wrong about that; I fear your predictions now are also wrong.
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
Given this is a betting site, I guess we should be asking: is anyone about to resign?
Philip Thompson?
I don't work for the party, though like most of us here I have been an activist in the past, but I'm absolutely going to stop supporting them if this goes ahead today, yes. Unequivocally.
Just to be clear:
Government breaks promise in international treaty - doubleplusgood
Government breaks promise in election manifesto - doubleplusungood
I can see a point where - if enough boats tried to cross - we would just turn them back with force. Make the French decide whether they live or die.
there is no fucking way johnson would have the fortitude for that because you'd have to brass up at least one boat and probably more to get the message across
look at this way if you really wanted a problem fixed would you have patel in charge of it? that tells you how much johnson cares about this
Sure sure. I’m talking a few years down the line if things get as bad as the very worst predictions - due to Afghanistan, climate change, general chaos and anarchy in Africa.
Let’s say 5,000 people are crossing every day. That’s nearly 2 million a year.
Clearly, at that stage we will adopt a military solution. Or the people will elect a Putin to do it.
Historically Homo sapiens has moved inexorably from Africa, largely via the Middle East to Western Europe and it's adjacent islands.
You can't conflate a theory about the origins of human beings with modern migration patterns.
You can't argue with the logic of history.
You are suggesting that the pattern of migration has been the same throughout history which is clearly not true.
This current pattern of migration is due to excess population in Africa and elsewhere so young adults are seeking a better life in Europe as there is little chance of one in Africa.
The problem is that these people are not the high skilled people we need nor often the refugees they claim to be.
We like to think we mainly/only need highly skilled people. In reality we need just as many to do the jobs people born here don't want to do for the current levels of pay, and simultaneously don't want to increase taxes to pay higher salaries for.
The pandemic taught us that there is a huge difference between peoples contribution to society vs their pay or skills. That is already being quickly forgotten and we will go back to undervaluing many people and roles without whom society wouldn't function well.
No, we don’t need these people. AI, drones, remote working, self driving vehicles and robotics are about to make millions redundant. Soon the problem will be TOO MANY workers
This has been said many, many times over history. From the Luddites onwards, people have been afraid of machines taking their jobs. Yet, oddly, increasing numbers of jobs have been created, albeit shifted around the workspace.
You predicted that the rise of autonomous vehicles meant that nobody would be driving lorries within ten years. That prediction was made seven or eight years ago, and is no nearer fruition now than it was then. In fact, as the current driver shortage shows there is a massive demand for them. You were wrong about that; I fear your predictions now are also wrong.
As less efficient jobs get eliminated, new more productive ones are created instead.
That's how we have long-term economic growth. Its a good thing when less efficient jobs disappear - or when remaining jobs get pay rises as a result. Though it may cause disruption on an individual basis as it occurs.
NEW - SOCIAL CARE Boris Johnson’s Cabinet met for more than an hour to discuss his social care plans amid a Tory revolt. Downing Street said the Cabinet “agreed to the plan set out by the Prime Minister, which is the entire package” including the tax hike. BUT... 1/
2/ PM’s spokesman refused to say if any Cabinet ministers raised objections to the tax hike. Instead said: “Cabinet agreed to the proposals set out - there was strong agreement this was a long standing issue particularly on the social care side which had been ducked for too long"
3/ Asked again if any ministers raised concerns over the funding of the plan, the spokesman told journalists: “I’ve given you the Cabinet readout, I’m not planning to get into detailed Cabinet discussions”. He added: “There are no plans for a reshuffle."
One thing we know is that the most likely (and seemingly the only) way to end up losing your job in a Boris administration is by disagreeing with him.
Given this is a betting site, I guess we should be asking: is anyone about to resign?
Philip Thompson?
I don't work for the party, though like most of us here I have been an activist in the past, but I'm absolutely going to stop supporting them if this goes ahead today, yes. Unequivocally.
Just to be clear:
Government breaks promise in international treaty - doubleplusgood
Government breaks promise in election manifesto - doubleplusungood
Is that about right?
Government breaks promise I opposed - doubleplusgood Government breaks promise I believe in - doubleplusungood
We all get to make that judgement. I would oppose the rise in taxes even if there had not been a promise.
Electoral party politics fails completely with issues like this. People are living longer and as a result the population is ageing, and under the current structure caring for the elderly is not affordable.
We must pay significantly more tax, massively reduce state spending or be in hoc to the banks by operating a growing deficit. None of these options is palatable and there isn't a nice alternative - so naturally our politicians pretend there isn't a problem as to try to address it is sure to p*** off a big chunk of your vote. Look at Theresa May with this very issue.
And the electorate don't help either. Those who are old will claim they've paid their bit (whilst ignoring the fact that they should have been paying a load more to their own old age for 20 years) those who are young will ask why they're paying for the old (whilst ignoring the fact that it's their old age as much as anyone else's that they're funding). Those who have no assets want those who have assets to pay, while those who have assets will question why they are being punished for managing their finances prudently and saving.
The electorate is selfish - it's always everyone else that should pick up the bill.
So by even attempting to address this issue the current government deserves praise regardless of whether it's the right way. Blair, Brown and Cameron were all just as aware of the issue and chose to do nothing. Not my problem guv, we'll leave this hospital pass for the next lot - which is more slyly political and nakedly partisan than anything that the lot who are actually trying to sort out this mess can ever propose.
And even they're probably only doing it because the covid debt has made it impossible not to. And on that positive note....
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
Canadian election — Eric Grenier's latest forecast:
"What are the chances of each party winning
10% probability of the Liberals winning a majority 44% probability of the Liberals winning the most seats but not a majority 41% probability of the Conservatives winning the most seats but not a majority 5% probability of the Conservatives winning a majority"
And 90% chance of O'Toole's Conservatives winning most seats excluding Quebec and if Trudeau's Liberals win most seats it will be because the Liberals win most seats in Quebec while the Conservatives are still third there
Yes, but. Quebec is part of Canada. Unless you are a new fan of separatism?
No, I have no problem with Quebec making the difference in Canada for the first time since Trudeau's father Pierre won in 1980 despite Joe Clark's Progressive Conservatives winning most seats in English speaking Canada.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
1. Cap of £86k 2. Floor of £100k 3. 1.25% hike NI 4. Raises £36bn 5. BUT vast majority goes to NHS. Only £5.4bn for care. 6. Of that £5.4bn, £2.5bn funds care cap. Leaves £2.9bn over 3 years for reform. Care leaders furious.
By breaking their manifesto promise on National Insurance, the Conservatives don't get to call themselves 'the party of the taxpayer'. They lose their claim on 'the party of business' too.
"Oxford University academic Ayushi Aruna Agarwal tweeted this morning: 'Hello from the immigration line at London Heathrow. 'They plan to make us spend 5 hours in close proximity with people from all over the globe here and then self-isolate for 10 days. Great plan.'
A second passenger, Eshita Sharma, posted: 'Welcome to UK with a veeeeeeery [sic] long queue and no water (or tea). 'My immigration bubble at Heathrow terminal 2. Should have brought a tent, a sleeping bag, and a mirror to see myself age in real time.'"
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
Interesting - Perhaps the govt was kite flying with the NI rise and will find a more popular way of funding it.
NI rise has been agreed in cabinet this morning so that is certain but the more detailed changes including share dividend taxation will no doubt accompany the statement
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Eh?
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
Ta
BBC news channel in last 5 minutes
Cheers.
As I posted last night, the 7.5% rate is absurd.
Not really, there used to be no tax at all becuse the divi is already net of corporation tax, so to tax it in the recipient's hands is taxing it twice.
So literally the only group not being hit now are wealthy pensioners. The Tory party is scum.
The social care cap is reported to be £80,000, so all assets over that will have to be used to defray the persons own care costs
For residential social care yes, not at home social care where the home would still be exempt from charges
You said you would oppose tax rises higher than 1% only yesterday.
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
Rounded up that is 1% not 2%
That's pathetic, no its not. Your tax doesn't get rounded to percentages on your wages.
Technically, the pence get knocked off income, and rounded up for tax paid, when one fills in the SA form for income tax. But that's quite different from the actual tax rate!
Mammoth Cabinet on social care reform lasted two-and-a-half hours and at least three of Boris Johnson's top ministers criticised the plan to hike tax to pay for it, source tells me.
Comments
Come on @hyufd. Tell us how all this is perfectly reasonable.
Didn't know about the Mormons though. Pity; that would have been good.
The Inuit must have had something though; wonder what they could ferment?
https://twitter.com/AnushkaAsthana/status/1435186985757515778
Today there's rumours the rise may be 1.25%
I wonder if that means HYUFD is going to oppose the rise today if so? Or if suddenly he'll "oppose any rise over 1.25%" instead? 🤔
But apparently along the lines of cheese rather than beer (ie food rather than getting pished).
Whether that's true or not, or if there's other cultural or socioeconomic issues is harder to tell, but its certainly believed to be a factor.
Also - how on earth is this going to preserve the houses of the voters of Epping, for instance, from being seized to pay for their dementia?
I did other factory kind of work, job agency stuff, and it was a similar pattern. Natives did the best shifts, immigrants did the crap ones.
I guess the Tories want to use Brexit and UC to force what they probably perceive as our idle, feckless dole scum to fill the night shifts as well.
I fail to see why replacing a keen immigrant workforce who were happy with the wage with a sullen native one that thinks the wage is crap and resent being there, is good for the UK.
Big Phil will tell me the market will correct and wages will rise if needed. Perhaps. But won't that just make us uncompetitive because labour costs are higher? I dunno, economics is voodoo to me.
Autarky's what we need. Hermetically seal ourselves of from the strange, effete ways of those not fortunate to have been birthed of Britannia and her boundless riches.
https://twitter.com/nickmacpherson2/status/1435188351120908290?s=21
However unless Planning Permission is abolished as I would want and anyone can build any home, relatively close to anywhere, on demand without seeking permission first the same is not true for houses.
Either you believe in a free market for houses or you don't, but if you do we need to abolish the requirement for planning permission. Make the market truly free.
Johnson has always been different in two ways. One is that he does give the impression of confusing collective responsibility with questioning the boss- see the sacking of Julian Smith.
The other is that he is willing to overlook any other failing provided people are personally loyal to him- see Gavin Williamson for the most outstanding example.
But ultimately, of course none of them have enough principles to resign over this. To do that they would either need principles, or have the confidence that resigning over this would be a smart career move (Heseltine's resignation in 1986 was like that, I guess). Most of them must know that they're only in the cabinet because BoJo is a weak leader who can only manage by being surrounded by even weaker yesmen and yeswomen.
There was an Centre for Policy Studies report regarding Manchester and it's attempts over the weekend to integrate the NHS and social care that claimed it hasn't worked.
I haven't read it yet as I find Centre for Policy Studies reports hard work as you need to identify the bias and have bigger priorities.
(One of the funniest things ever said on live television, sad that Julian Clary got blacklisted for several years afterwards)
One troll - a man in his early twenties from Saudi Arabia - sent Saka a number of monkey emojis on Instagram.
He also admits he knew what he was doing was racist: "It was a big mistake. I was angry and I didn't know when Saka saw the monkey what he would feel. I saw other people were typing the same emoji and I went with them.
Oh well, if you don't like it you can always vote for the .............. Party.
What a bloody sham our democracy is - 2 cheeks of the same arse.
Vote on proposals to be held tomorrow
If the market is free then there's fewer entry barriers to enter the market - currently getting permission is by far the biggest barrier to construction.
In many countries houses are built down to the individual home. If you want a house building you can pay contractors who will build it to spec for you. Instead of waiting for a developer to build an entire development of houses simultaneously.
If contractors or small building firms can compete with the developers then the developers will face more competition losing some of their profits and the capacity of construction would expand.
Something PB spotted last week.
Government expected to raise tax on share dividends
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-58472456
No injury, but pretty barbaric. I think he's daft, but politicians must be able to campaign without risk of violence.
I don't agree with his politics but disagreements should be verbal not physical. I hope whoever did that is arrested and charged with assault.
But it might be a start.
12.30 - Boris in HOC
4.00pm - Boris, Rishi and Sajid press conference
Cynical, but smart politics.
virtue without terror is impotent... robespierre
If people cease to do uncompetitive jobs that don't justify higher wages, and instead switch to doing higher productivity, higher efficiency jobs instead then that is good for the people getting higher wages, good for HMRC getting more revenues and paying less in welfare, good for companies that the higher-wage consumer can now spend their money on and simply generally good for the economy.
Low-wage, low-efficiency, subsidised jobs harm the economy it doesn't help it.
For example, if May stands down in Maidenhead then the Windsor MP can move to Maidenhead. The Runnymede MP can then follow Egham into the Windsor seat and Raab can take Runnymede. Or Raab could chicken run to the brand new Farnham and Borden seat.
And the BBC said this morning the NI rise is popular with 65% support according to the polling
Remember it was only about 50 years ago the Kennedy brothers were assassinated and 30 years ago Reagan was shot
Not least because it is seen as unCanadian. Verging on the American.
Physical violence is never acceptable towards people standing for election.
Marvelous.
First I’ve heard re: dividends. Do you have a source?
Ta
Edit: just seen lauraK post @11.57
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-58473078
If as reported it is 1.2% then are you a man of your word?
You predicted that the rise of autonomous vehicles meant that nobody would be driving lorries within ten years. That prediction was made seven or eight years ago, and is no nearer fruition now than it was then. In fact, as the current driver shortage shows there is a massive demand for them. You were wrong about that; I fear your predictions now are also wrong.
Government breaks promise in international treaty - doubleplusgood
Government breaks promise in election manifesto - doubleplusungood
Is that about right?
That's how we have long-term economic growth. Its a good thing when less efficient jobs disappear - or when remaining jobs get pay rises as a result. Though it may cause disruption on an individual basis as it occurs.
Government breaks promise I believe in - doubleplusungood
We all get to make that judgement. I would oppose the rise in taxes even if there had not been a promise.
We must pay significantly more tax, massively reduce state spending or be in hoc to the banks by operating a growing deficit. None of these options is palatable and there isn't a nice alternative - so naturally our politicians pretend there isn't a problem as to try to address it is sure to p*** off a big chunk of your vote. Look at Theresa May with this very issue.
And the electorate don't help either. Those who are old will claim they've paid their bit (whilst ignoring the fact that they should have been paying a load more to their own old age for 20 years) those who are young will ask why they're paying for the old (whilst ignoring the fact that it's their old age as much as anyone else's that they're funding). Those who have no assets want those who have assets to pay, while those who have assets will question why they are being punished for managing their finances prudently and saving.
The electorate is selfish - it's always everyone else that should pick up the bill.
So by even attempting to address this issue the current government deserves praise regardless of whether it's the right way. Blair, Brown and Cameron were all just as aware of the issue and chose to do nothing. Not my problem guv, we'll leave this hospital pass for the next lot - which is more slyly political and nakedly partisan than anything that the lot who are actually trying to sort out this mess can ever propose.
And even they're probably only doing it because the covid debt has made it impossible not to. And on that positive note....
As I posted last night, the 7.5% rate is absurd.
Just as I have no problem with Scottish seats making Starmer PM even if the Tories have a majority in England at the next general election as I am a Unionist .
Just noted the fact
1. Cap of £86k
2. Floor of £100k
3. 1.25% hike NI
4. Raises £36bn
5. BUT vast majority goes to NHS. Only £5.4bn for care.
6. Of that £5.4bn, £2.5bn funds care cap. Leaves £2.9bn over 3 years for reform. Care leaders furious.
https://twitter.com/PaulBrandITV/status/1435198238848700416
BoZo breaks 2 manifesto promises to fix a problem, and doesn't fix it.
Today's @telebusiness column:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2021/09/07/jobs-tax-asking-much-struggling-businesses/
A second passenger, Eshita Sharma, posted: 'Welcome to UK with a veeeeeeery [sic] long queue and no water (or tea). 'My immigration bubble at Heathrow terminal 2. Should have brought a tent, a sleeping bag, and a mirror to see myself age in real time.'"
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9964951/Tory-MPs-demand-answers-silent-Border-Force-chiefs-Heathrow-airport-queue-chaos.html
Not all "positive", as No 10 said.
https://twitter.com/singharj/status/1435193944397189127