I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.
Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.
Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
It must be a nice fuzzy feeling from being the darling of the left/media though
I'd have thought Charles that given how you often bang on about all the good works your family have done over the centuries you'd appreciate someone doing something because they feel it is the right thing to do.
Or does that only apply to the landed gentry sharing their benevolence with oiks?
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Talking of hypocrisy.
Rashford's interventions have caused nothing but hysterical consternation on these pages by Government apologists. Never a word around biased reporting in the sensational Sun on Sunday by those same clarion voices
Interesting to see that Ireland has very quietly announced that it is raising corporation tax to 15% in 2023 to align with Biden's global minimum tax initiative.
I do wonder how the parasite countries will keep going with the "taxed in country of business" rules because it means Apple UK paying UK corporation tax rather than whatever 0.1% deal they have with Ireland.
Interesting to note too that the first major thing Ireland's 'allies' in the EU have done post-Brexit is force it to raise corporation tax and to smash their business model.
Who could have foreseen that? 🤔
You must be mistaken, there's no way that the EU would ever do that to Ireland. Unity of the 27, Brexit means Brexit, Northern Ireland, Unity, UNITY!
I am taking a small amount of joy over Ireland getting ritually shafted by their EU "allies" over this tax stuff and soon the NI protocol as the EU decides that trade with the UK is worth more to the 26 than Irish membership is and really, it's probably better for Ireland to leave the EU and sort out it's border issues with the UK separately and outside of the EU.
Add in Biden the Irishman proposing this tax initiative and also clearly giving no fucks about the situation with the Irish border other than a bit of lip service for the Irish democratic caucus and you can't help but smile after the last five years of Varadker pompously banging on about a United Ireland and overriding the unionist/republican consensus in NI.
After hubris comes nemesis goes the saying.
The issue was Varadkar's hubris.
Well, let's see. What I understood from Sefcovic was that he was willing to discuss how to implement the NI protocol, he was not going to remove it.
Sefcovic doesn't have a choice, he's backed into a corner. If he doesn't negotiate to remove it (or "implement" it via finding ways to get rid of it, like trusted trader schemes that should have always been front and centre) then the Article 16 button gets pressed and its gotten rid of anyway.
He was pretty clear that if Britain invoked Article 16 then there would be EU economic counter measures.
But it was ok when the EU invoked it?
You won't find me saying that, but if they had stuck to it then we would have been justified in countermeasures.
I am old enough to remember when being British involved keeping our word*. We signed the NI protocol, therefore we should stick to it. The only issues are of how to administer it.
*myth rather than reality, of course!
We are keeping our word.
The deal was that we would work collaboratively to find a permanent solution (trusted trader). The EU has refused to engage in the topic.
There was also a carve out on implementation if it would damage community relations which the Unionists have made clear it is doing
Interesting to see that Ireland has very quietly announced that it is raising corporation tax to 15% in 2023 to align with Biden's global minimum tax initiative.
I do wonder how the parasite countries will keep going with the "taxed in country of business" rules because it means Apple UK paying UK corporation tax rather than whatever 0.1% deal they have with Ireland.
Interesting to note too that the first major thing Ireland's 'allies' in the EU have done post-Brexit is force it to raise corporation tax and to smash their business model.
Who could have foreseen that? 🤔
You must be mistaken, there's no way that the EU would ever do that to Ireland. Unity of the 27, Brexit means Brexit, Northern Ireland, Unity, UNITY!
I am taking a small amount of joy over Ireland getting ritually shafted by their EU "allies" over this tax stuff and soon the NI protocol as the EU decides that trade with the UK is worth more to the 26 than Irish membership is and really, it's probably better for Ireland to leave the EU and sort out it's border issues with the UK separately and outside of the EU.
Add in Biden the Irishman proposing this tax initiative and also clearly giving no fucks about the situation with the Irish border other than a bit of lip service for the Irish democratic caucus and you can't help but smile after the last five years of Varadker pompously banging on about a United Ireland and overriding the unionist/republican consensus in NI.
After hubris comes nemesis goes the saying.
The issue was Varadkar's hubris.
Well, let's see. What I understood from Sefcovic was that he was willing to discuss how to implement the NI protocol, he was not going to remove it.
Sefcovic doesn't have a choice, he's backed into a corner. If he doesn't negotiate to remove it (or "implement" it via finding ways to get rid of it, like trusted trader schemes that should have always been front and centre) then the Article 16 button gets pressed and its gotten rid of anyway.
He was pretty clear that if Britain invoked Article 16 then there would be EU economic counter measures.
Its also pretty clear that EU counter measures are an empty bluff. A threat that has no serious grounding.
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf of counter measures? Besides if they do counter measures, then we can counter their counter measures too.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
Your point remains utterly absurd. You're inventing an arbitrary line where campaigners or interested persons must seek democratic mandates to express opinions.
It's truly one of the silliest and most unreasonable opinions I can recall reading on here, and I struggle to even understand it.
Ultimately if the decision is still someone else's they can comment on anything they damn well please, as they can just be ignored. If they start onto topics people dont support their comments will lose effect.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Went to my local BP garage at 6.45am this morning - zero queue and petrol all available, but still restricted to 20 litres each. He said that'd go next week.
It's fizzling out.
About time too, it's lasted longer than the 2000 fuel fiasco.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
I was kind-of agreeing with you. Whilst use of such pressure is fine if you agree with cause, it can be slightly more troublesome if you do not.
I’m relaxed about a celebrity pushing one cause… when it begins to become multiple causes from a consistent political perspective it is more troubling
What's the difference between Rashford talking about poverty (especially the child poverty he himself experienced) and Price Charles talking about Ecology 20 years before it became the in thing.
Both are using their position to push a viewpoint that they believe is important and the press belief is significant enough that their combined fame and interests is important enough to make the news.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
I was kind-of agreeing with you. Whilst use of such pressure is fine if you agree with cause, it can be slightly more troublesome if you do not.
I’m relaxed about a celebrity pushing one cause… when it begins to become multiple causes from a consistent political perspective it is more troubling
My gods, someone is advancing causes with a consistent perspective? When will this madman be stopped!
Can't he just form a vanity political party or 'politicise' himself by getting involved in a party and be criticised for that instead?
Interesting to see that Ireland has very quietly announced that it is raising corporation tax to 15% in 2023 to align with Biden's global minimum tax initiative.
I do wonder how the parasite countries will keep going with the "taxed in country of business" rules because it means Apple UK paying UK corporation tax rather than whatever 0.1% deal they have with Ireland.
Interesting to note too that the first major thing Ireland's 'allies' in the EU have done post-Brexit is force it to raise corporation tax and to smash their business model.
Who could have foreseen that? 🤔
You must be mistaken, there's no way that the EU would ever do that to Ireland. Unity of the 27, Brexit means Brexit, Northern Ireland, Unity, UNITY!
I am taking a small amount of joy over Ireland getting ritually shafted by their EU "allies" over this tax stuff and soon the NI protocol as the EU decides that trade with the UK is worth more to the 26 than Irish membership is and really, it's probably better for Ireland to leave the EU and sort out it's border issues with the UK separately and outside of the EU.
Add in Biden the Irishman proposing this tax initiative and also clearly giving no fucks about the situation with the Irish border other than a bit of lip service for the Irish democratic caucus and you can't help but smile after the last five years of Varadker pompously banging on about a United Ireland and overriding the unionist/republican consensus in NI.
After hubris comes nemesis goes the saying.
The issue was Varadkar's hubris.
Well, let's see. What I understood from Sefcovic was that he was willing to discuss how to implement the NI protocol, he was not going to remove it.
Sefcovic doesn't have a choice, he's backed into a corner. If he doesn't negotiate to remove it (or "implement" it via finding ways to get rid of it, like trusted trader schemes that should have always been front and centre) then the Article 16 button gets pressed and its gotten rid of anyway.
He was pretty clear that if Britain invoked Article 16 then there would be EU economic counter measures.
But it was ok when the EU invoked it?
You won't find me saying that, but if they had stuck to it then we would have been justified in countermeasures.
I am old enough to remember when being British involved keeping our word*. We signed the NI protocol, therefore we should stick to it. The only issues are of how to administer it.
*myth rather than reality, of course!
We are keeping our word.
The deal was that we would work collaboratively to find a permanent solution (trusted trader). The EU has refused to engage in the topic.
There was also a carve out on implementation if it would damage community relations which the Unionists have made clear it is doing
I find it amusing all the Remoaners complaining that we should "stick to" the Protocol. Article 16 is a part of the Protocol, if we invoke it then that is sticking to the Protocol.
Its especially funny how few of these people got exercised when Blair and Brown reneged on offering a referendum that was part of the election manifesto, signing the EU Constitution the Lisbon Treaty without one despite it being the same thing.
Frost sticks to the Protocol by invoking an Article literally contained within the Protocol: an outrage. Blair and Brown completely break their manifesto commitment changing our constitution without us having a say: no problem.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
That last bit explains an awful lot about a lot of Tory policies - they only seem sane when seen through the eyes of a drunk.
I'll get my own coat and disappear to do some real work.
Well, to round off this week - no defectors, and China not at war with Taiwan, but the big news - LibDems won in Cranleigh East, by 903 to 608. This was a split ward last time (2 LD 1 Con) and Labour didn't stand this time (we got 6.4% last time), giving an effective Con-LD swing of 10%, or 8.4% if we assume that half the Labour vote turned out for the LibDems (as I think is likely). It was intensely fought, with 4 Tory MPs involved.
That seems like a lot of MPs for a by-election in a council with NOC...
It's Blue Wall teritory (part of Guildford constituency, which is a LibDem target), although also part of Waverley borough, which is usually Tory but as you say currently run by a non-Tory coalition (including me).
It's also an example of how informal alliances can work in FPTP. Labour's non-participation was perhaps not entirely accidental.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
It probably helps with imagining our PM as a towering statesman
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
It probably helps with imagining our PM as a towering statesman
So does Keir Starmer being leader of the opposition.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
(Parts of) The Right: The young and minorities need to get more involved in politics if they want their voices heard. Rashford: Gets involved (Parts of) The Right: No, not like that!!! Quieten down now.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
The difference is that Rashford is using his soft power to speak up for people who don't have a voice, children and poor children especially. Murdoch has always wielded his power solely for personal profit.
Ok. So the difference is that you approve of Rashford and disapprove of Murdoch?
I don't recall Lord Botham, our trade envoy to Australia, being elected. Or many other government appointments / House of Lords members. Maybe I missed it.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
I was kind-of agreeing with you. Whilst use of such pressure is fine if you agree with cause, it can be slightly more troublesome if you do not.
I’m relaxed about a celebrity pushing one cause… when it begins to become multiple causes from a consistent political perspective it is more troubling
What's the difference between Rashford talking about poverty (especially the child poverty he himself experienced) and Price Charles talking about Ecology 20 years before it became the in thing.
Both are using their position to push a viewpoint that they believe is important and the press belief is significant enough that their combined fame and interests is important enough to make the news.
Prince Charles must surely be the exmplar for someone using his celebrity to push multiple causes: ecology, architecture, alternative medicine, etc.
The story of meat consumption confused me as I was unclear from the start if it meant there were government or national targets being missed. If it's just a target from.campaigners or guidance from a public body that should be more up front.
It was a government commissioned report led by a friend of the Johnsons, Henry Dimbleby, and it came up with recommendations for the government to consider.
Many of its proposals will not be new, they have been touted by various health lobby campaign groups for a while now. They were going to propose a so-called junk food ad ban but the govt pipped them to the post with that. A pointless initiative given the research carried out by the group lobbying for it said it would remove 3 calories a day from a persons diet.
To be fair to Dimbleby, he is pretty critical of the way that trade deals are potentially undermining British farming standards. I don't think his report will have been read with enthusiasm by all sections of the Government, but it's well-researched. There will be a White Paper response to it in January.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
I dont think his motivations particularly matter. There are easier and less fraught ways to get attention and enhance future prospects though.
He and his advisers have so far kept a tone which has made it harder to just ignore him as some ranty leftist, and that seems to aggravate some people as it means he's getting listened to by more than just one political tribe.
I'm not even instinctively opposed to ending the UC uplift, though it sounds like if the government is wrong it will cause bug issues.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
Unless he's engaged in tax avoidance schemes, then Rashford would already be "giving away" around £100k per week to HMRC in PAYE. So he couldn't give away the amount you say, since he doesn't take that home already.
If he is engaged in tax avoidance schemes, then that would be legitimate grounds to object.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
Re the last clause, you'd probably have to be, wouldn't you? (Snipe!)
Although to be fair, in the days when I attended Liberal Party Conferences, there was some drinking going on.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
The difference is that Rashford is using his soft power to speak up for people who don't have a voice, children and poor children especially. Murdoch has always wielded his power solely for personal profit.
Ok. So the difference is that you approve of Rashford and disapprove of Murdoch?
I don't recall Lord Botham, our trade envoy to Australia, being elected. Or many other government appointments / House of Lords members. Maybe I missed it.
You raise a good solution to this
Lord Rashford, Crossbench Peer . He then has an unimpeachable mandate to talk about national issues.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
How do you know that he does not do this?
On the original point, I'm fine with anyone speaking out. If they want the power to actually change government policy directly, rather than by lobbying, they need to get elected. Otherwise, lobby away.
This also applies to the likes of Murdoch. I think he has not been a positive influence on politics in this country. But I absolutely defend his right to do as he does.
Edit: And I have the right to criticise what Murdoch does, while not seeking to stop him; others have the right to criticise Rashford's campaigns.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Around 7 in 10 adults in Great Britain with a child aged 12 to 15 in their household said the child is very or fairly likely to receive a #COVID19 vaccine, according to our Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (22 September to 3 October 2021)
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
Unless someone is St Francis of Assissi they cannot suggest policy solutions to things?
Class and inequality Poverty Short termism Underinvestment in utilities and infrastructure (roads, rails) Weird legacy ideological gimmicks (fake energy markets) Nostalgia Housing (and private rental in particular) Talent sucked into banking rather than productive economy Neglected towns Legacy print media and commentators.
…
Many of them exacerbated by the "get some cheap foreigners to keep the wages down" mentality.
And many of them exacerbated by an over focus on London.
So how does a Labour party, and Keir Starmer in particular, offer change when it/he believes in "get some cheap foreigners to keep the wages down" and has an over focus on London.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Is his lobbying really all out in the open ?
I agree with you on his right to put forward his views, just as anyone else is.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
It probably helps with imagining our PM as a towering statesman
So does Keir Starmer being leader of the opposition.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I've not idea of actual heights, but I do see Starmer as more towering than Johnson (might be a relative height/breadth thing). In the land of the picaninny, the grown up is a giant
Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".
Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
I was told to inform my GP after I received it, as it was private (£14.99) (I'm outside of NHS categories). Have checked my NHS records now and it is on there. A message in the NHS app seems to work.
Meat consumption has fallen in the last 10 years by 17%.
Although this is not anywhere near enough for the National Food Strategy which seems to have endorsements from various celebrity chefs and Quangocrats.
Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".
Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
The difference is that Rashford is using his soft power to speak up for people who don't have a voice, children and poor children especially. Murdoch has always wielded his power solely for personal profit.
Ok. So the difference is that you approve of Rashford and disapprove of Murdoch?
I don't recall Lord Botham, our trade envoy to Australia, being elected. Or many other government appointments / House of Lords members. Maybe I missed it.
You raise a good solution to this
Lord Rashford, Crossbench Peer . He then has an unimpeachable mandate to talk about national issues.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
How do you know that he does not do this?
On the original point, I'm fine with anyone speaking out. If they want the power to actually change government policy directly, rather than by lobbying, they need to get elected. Otherwise, lobby away.
This also applies to the likes of Murdoch. I think he has not been a positive influence on politics in this country. But I absolutely defend his right to do as he does.
Edit: And I have the right to criticise what Murdoch does, while not seeking to stop him; others have the right to criticise Rashford's campaigns.
The significant difference between Rashford and Murdoch is Rashford is campaigning by saying what he has to say and others can agree or object on its merits. He can't tell anyone else how his comments have to be reported.
Murdoch controls large elements of the media so can order them to hold an editorial viewpoint and it isn't credited to him, its just how they report it.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.
Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.
Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
That is a brilliant and astute comment. Mostly of course because I agree with it but also because I had never thought of it in that way until you mentioned it.
It also comes back to Orwell's excellent article linked to yesterday about the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
I think there's an argument to keep the £20 uplift with the rising costs of living now. But it's up to the Gov't.
Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".
Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.
Is there anything they've got right?!
Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
My wife enjoyed her day at the Tory conference, BTW. Her main impressions were: a lot of white people, everyone was really lovely, and everyone seemed to be drunk.
It probably helps with imagining our PM as a towering statesman
So does Keir Starmer being leader of the opposition.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
I've not idea of actual heights, but I do see Starmer as more towering than Johnson (might be a relative height/breadth thing). In the land of the picaninny, the grown up is a giant
Johnson 1cm taller apparently (175 vs 174cm). Neither especially tall. Sunak 170cm allegedly.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
I think there's an argument to keep the £20 uplift with the rising costs of living now. But it's up to the Gov't.
Are UC rates frozen like the tax thresholds or going up with inflation?
If cost of living goes up, then won't UC go up in the budget as a result?
Though the cost of living going up is nothing new, its been doing that for decades if you aren't an owner occupier and I suspect most UC claimants aren't.
Thanks Carlotta, much appreciated. I assume the jab gets recorded and added to your GP's records?
I have never given an NHS number when getting a supermarket/chemists flu jab. Not sure how they would get added to GP records without that.
Name address and dob are enough to find it in the database.
While the Boots form asks for NHS number and GP, I'm in the process of moving GP and they said "just tell your new GP you've had it".
Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
Hold on a minute, weren't the blue tick wankers all saying that we'd have a shortage of flu jabs this year because of Brexit and no HGV drivers?! I'm sure I read that it wouldn't be possible to get one and people over 60 would have to go without over the winter.
Is there anything they've got right?!
Boots told me just yesterday that there are current shortages of the jab, affecting appointment numbers, for just that reason
And yet anyone is eligible to book? Feels more like a BP style PR campaign to get cheap workers back.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
And his agenda is obvious and clear. It's not like Murdoch's where there are things hidden behind the public part.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
I absolutely agree his motives are noble but it was interesting seeing the documentary the BBC did that followed him as to how many lobbying groups and charities were trying to get him on board to endorse them. I hope he continues to resist and carry on as he is rather than just becoming a front man. He did get on board with Emma Thompson and her campaign which was aligned with his.
I don’t know about national treasure, though. Can’t see it. Maybe in time.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
A proper wealth tax would hit some elite footballers, and rightly so. None of the parties are proposing it yet, but it is popular if targeted high enough and will come sooner or later (at a guess around 2030).
Someone's finally had the courage to put their head above the parapet:
Good to hear Vice Chancellor of @SussexUni on @BBCr4today defending his colleague @Docstockk from attempts to intimidate & destroy her career for saying biological sex is different from gender. Not all women enjoy such support from their colleagues #misogyny...
Also good to hear @JustinOnWeb say what’s happening to @Docstockk is an attempt to bully her out of her job & stop her from earning a living. As the victim of similar behaviour it’s a joy to hear a BBC journalist calling it out #WomenWontWheesht
Went to my local BP garage at 6.45am this morning - zero queue and petrol all available, but still restricted to 20 litres each. He said that'd go next week.
It's fizzling out.
Turkeys are next. I was at the turkey farm yesterday for our weekly dog training, and their flock (or whatever the right term is) is only half the size of previous years. When it comes to ordering time there’s going to be a rush
My KellyBronze is ordered and paid for.
Eighteen months ago, people thought PPE contracts would be honoured.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
Maybe because Rashford is not using it for personal gain?
He lives a life of extraordinary luxury, he has an MBE and a hononary degree. Each month he earns another £1million. There is not a lot more he could gain.
Further and better titles, more fame, a second career in the meejah when he gets too old to miss penalties? Hush ma big mouf.
Yes, or perhaps it is just something he cares deeply about, after an impoverished childhood.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
Im sorry but if he cares so much why does he not buy houses for impoverished people or just give away £900,000.00 of his monthly salary. How can a man who earns the huge amount he does for just kicking a ball and keep all that money for himself whilst preach that the average taxpayer should fund more benefit schemes, be a national treasure?
How do you know that he does not do this?
On the original point, I'm fine with anyone speaking out. If they want the power to actually change government policy directly, rather than by lobbying, they need to get elected. Otherwise, lobby away.
This also applies to the likes of Murdoch. I think he has not been a positive influence on politics in this country. But I absolutely defend his right to do as he does.
Edit: And I have the right to criticise what Murdoch does, while not seeking to stop him; others have the right to criticise Rashford's campaigns.
The significant difference between Rashford and Murdoch is Rashford is campaigning by saying what he has to say and others can agree or object on its merits. He can't tell anyone else how his comments have to be reported.
Murdoch controls large elements of the media so can order them to hold an editorial viewpoint and it isn't credited to him, its just how they report it.
That's not the same thing whatsoever.
Yep, that's why I see Murdoch as a negative influence. Not for his views, but his ability to present views as facts. But he's just playing the system as it is, people with opposing viewpoints do the same, just less effectively. Unless we extend neutrality to print media (which maybe would have had merit, but redundant now in the age of the internet?)
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
I'm with you. There's things about the country I love, and I'm comfortable here because I know how stuff works and I speak the language, but saying I love England would be a weird to me as saying I love my dishwasher.
Pretty much the same - I like the German President (Heinemann) who said he felt warmly about his country and wished it well but he didn't love it, he loved his wife.
Depends what one means by love, perhaps. Feeling affectionate about familiar people and surroundings is just natural and also pretty nice. It only becomes deformed if it turns into wanting them to dominate everyone else.
Exactly on your last point. It's the difference between Jerusalem and Rule, Brittania.
That is a brilliant and astute comment. Mostly of course because I agree with it but also because I had never thought of it in that way until you mentioned it.
It also comes back to Orwell's excellent article linked to yesterday about the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
Scott Alexander starts by detecting outgroup-intolerance (what Orwell broadly calls nationalism) in himself, and when you see why I suspect you will detect it in yourself. Orwell manages to combine having a dig at the Celts for being nationalists with having a dig at them for being wee, puir and stupid, rather remarkably.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
I think Marcus has been exemplary over his campaigning and generally apolitical but where he may have problems is that he has not played for months and has a lot of catching up do in his day job
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
More difficult to attack *successfully*, as evidenced by the pathetic efforts on here.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
In a strongly-worded initial reaction, the European Commission said the decision on Thursday raised “serious concerns”. It reaffirmed that “EU law has primacy over national law, including constitutional provisions”.
That's the Guardian today on the Poland constitutional case. Just a reminder that those who think the EU is not an emerging state, and those who think everyone else is wonderfully happy with this conflicted and oxymoronic nightmare may be mistaken.
BTW, the SNP are unhappy with the UK having control over the Scottish constitutional settlement, while wanting the EU to 'have primacy over (Scottish) national law, including constitutional provisions'. Fascinating.
The problem with this analysis is that the Polish Constitutional Court isn't an independent body that deliberates before coming to reasoned and objective judgment. It's a kangaroo court stuffed with ruling party stooges who do precisely what they are told by their government masters.
It is a massive problem for the EU however. A bigger threat to them in my view than Brexit. It can't really function if members don't respect the rule of law and and have a strong and independent judiciary.
I think the EU would do better as a smaller grouping, and the Poles don't really want to be part of "the project" anyway.
Why not split amicably now?
Rather ironic we pushed and pushed for expansion eastwards. Then buggered off.
Leaving behind an EU which resolutely speaks English, rather than French, which was the supreme language of the EU when we first joined
Our entire EU membership can be seen as an act of comical cultural sabotage of the French. No wonder they stole our vaccines
Fuck's sake get over the French already. Jesus.
The French obsession exhibited by certain PBers is a weird infatuation, as if they were denied French citizenship in their formative years, and have never got over it.
More like a sibling rivalry.
Indeed. The reason the French infuriate the English is because they are so similar. And vice versa.
Ah yes, another English expert speaking from his home in Sweden.
Besides, I don't really see that list being true of either the English or the French. Or, at least, they're applicable in various ways to most countries, in that they're common aspects of human nature.
Breaking news: the French and the English are human beings.
Wow. I never knew that. I thought we were Homo Superior...
But seriously, so you accept that your list of negatives might apply equally to ... oh, let's pick a nation at random... Scotland?
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
Great ideas. Let's steal all those for the next Labour manifesto.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
A proper wealth tax would hit some elite footballers, and rightly so. None of the parties are proposing it yet, but it is popular if targeted high enough and will come sooner or later (at a guess around 2030).
I think the Tories will start looking at them in the next cycle and set the agenda rather than let Labour do it and tax primary residences or private pension pots. I do see a future where the Tories push taxes for the super rich and introduce a new class of ultra-luxury tax. It's an easy revenue raiser and a political win. What's more is that the old argument of losing Chinese tourists won't make sense since we won't get them anyway in a post-COVID/Xi world where China is completely locked down.
I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
England missing a trick? There will be many differences between Scotland and England's roll-out of jabs/jags to teens. One is that in Scotland, 12-15 year-olds are able to get doses at walk-in venues. In England, this is not permitted.
I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
I think it may be something to do with him being younger, richer and more popular than the complainers.....
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
More difficult to attack *successfully*, as evidenced by the pathetic efforts on here.
I have no anti-him agenda whatever - rather the opposite, given he is more of a thorn in Johnson's side than most - but there is no need to regard him either as stupid, or as a young Gandhi. People like fame and influence for their own sake, and people can build positions outside of party politics with an intention of pivoting into PP later on - examples as diverse as Reagan, Trump, SKS.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
I think Marcus has been exemplary over his campaigning and generally apolitical but where he may have problems is that he has not played for months and has a lot of catching up do in his day job
That's entirely between him and his employer, nothing to do with his campaigning whatsoever.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
Great ideas. Let's steal all those for the next Labour manifesto.
Or Labour could, you know, lead with such policies now? Rather than flirt with them but be embarrassed about doing so.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.
You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.
I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.
Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.
Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.
Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
Rashford is free to say (and not say, cough*vaccines*cough) what he likes. What concerns me is that no one wants to talk about the hard reality of the situation. In August, the government borrowed £20bn. That's only £5bn less than the previous August, £15bn more than August 2019, and £8bn more than August 2009 when Labour were borrowing like no tomorrow.
What's the chances that this improves any time soon? Furlough has now ended, but that can't have been costing that much by the end. How does the government get borrowing down? Is it by less spending or higher taxes?
Mr. 86, a very sensible question. It won't occur to most political journalists. And it certainly won't occur to the spendaholic imbecile ensconced in Number 10.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
A proper wealth tax would hit some elite footballers, and rightly so. None of the parties are proposing it yet, but it is popular if targeted high enough and will come sooner or later (at a guess around 2030).
I think the Tories will start looking at them in the next cycle and set the agenda rather than let Labour do it and tax primary residences or private pension pots. I do see a future where the Tories push taxes for the super rich and introduce a new class of ultra-luxury tax. It's an easy revenue raiser and a political win. What's more is that the old argument of losing Chinese tourists won't make sense since we won't get them anyway in a post-COVID/Xi world where China is completely locked down.
As far as Chinese tourists are concerned, isn't there a vaccine issue? Apparently we do not accept one of the Chinese vaccines as offering satisfactory protection, and anyone 'vaccinated' with it has to spend at least 5 days in isolation on arrival in UK.
Younger son, a Thailand resident who does, in normal times, a lot of international travelling, has had 4 vaccinations, two with vaccines approved by the Chinese and two with vaccines approved in UK. He has now discovered that in order to bring his family to UK for Christmas, his wife will have to quarantine for five days on arrival. Apparently though, she can do it where they are staying.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
And the pros and cons if more were like me:
Less wars (pro) A near emotionally arid world (con)
If people didn't fight over land and territory they'd fight over something else - status, values, resource allocation, elitism or rights.
It's a total fallacy to say that "religions and nations are behind all wars", although a very common one in the erstwhile intelligent internationalist Left.
Well clearly people will fight over anything, but to say nationalism is never the cause of wars is clearly barking.
If you are describing me as intelligent internationalist left (I'm not sure you are) I'll take the first two obviously, but left? Think you have me mixed up with some else if you think I am of the left. I am not a Tory and I am a LD, but I am to to the right of many Tories on many things including yourself.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
I think there's an argument to keep the £20 uplift with the rising costs of living now. But it's up to the Gov't.
Are UC rates frozen like the tax thresholds or going up with inflation?
If cost of living goes up, then won't UC go up in the budget as a result?
Though the cost of living going up is nothing new, its been doing that for decades if you aren't an owner occupier and I suspect most UC claimants aren't.
I've checked the spring budget and I can't see that it says either way.
Worth remembering that the extra £20 is a massive increase on the standard rate, more than 25% on the old JSA component. I think that our social security rates have been far too low, and would welcome the £20 staying, but keeping £10 would probably more than undo the cuts imposed by Osbourne not increasing the rates by inflation.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.
You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.
I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.
Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.
Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.
Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
Passing over the generality of your comments, can I ask you to listen to Return of the Grievous Angel by Gram Parsons before finally giving up? The album if poss, but the title track is the killer.
I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
The type of campaigner/volunteer i respect the most is one who gives up large chunks of their life/fortune to help people. If Rashford spent his time getting premier league players to give up 20% of their incredible incomes and then used this money to directly help those less fortunate then I would think he was great. What he does is use is notiriety to force the Government to borrow even more money to increase benefits. I don't see how that makes him a national treasure. He lives a life of incredible luxury and will never have to work a day in his life, whilst preaching on how the average taxpayer should fund more benefit rises. How about giving away one of his many cars to someone without a car? He could fund the building of a YMCA hostel in Manchester for those without a home.
I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
The people who I heard criticise Rashford most were dinner ladies - they had anecdotes about the amount of food both thrown away and given away.
There didn't seem to be any balance or depth in the reporting of Rashford's campaigns - it was just deemed to be a 'good thing'.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Agreed, and the government has a real opportunity here to harness this and put up new luxury taxes and super rich taxes to fund all of his pet projects. I wonder how he'd react to dividend taxes rising to 50% on income of over £5m per year? Or income tax going to 48% for over £5m per year? How about a new class of car tax at £20k per year for owners of Bentley Continentals.
I've no wish to hurt the British car industry.
Much better would be a 99% tax on professional footballers. They're mostly stupid overpaid loudmouths anyway.
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
Though he does have tremendous public support. Isn't that a mandate?
Rashford is free to say (and not say, cough*vaccines*cough) what he likes. What concerns me is that no one wants to talk about the hard reality of the situation. In August, the government borrowed £20bn. That's only £5bn less than the previous August, £15bn more than August 2019, and £8bn more than August 2009 when Labour were borrowing like no tomorrow.
What's the chances that this improves any time soon? Furlough has now ended, but that can't have been costing that much by the end. How does the government get borrowing down? Is it by less spending or higher taxes?
But Rashford is a national treasure by trying to force the Government to borrow even more whilst living in one of his many houses or driving one of his numerous cars.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
I dont know why you wouldn't get it, even if you don't share it. It's incredibly common the world over that people feel closer connection to their place or birth or where they were raised, even if theres objectively crappy things about it.
Probably how expressed it (same answer to CR although he was less polite than you). I get that people are. It is the norm, but like a few others (the minority) have expressed in agreement with me we don't get it emotionally. The analogy I gave was I don't get how people can like country music, but they do. I know that, but don't get why they do. They probably feel the same about me re blues music. I get that they do, but don't get it emotionally and even that is not 100% true as, as I said previously I do support the local sporting team and do love my children over and above equally nice other people, so I am not entirely emotionally devoid.
Americans think USA is the best country, Brits Britain, French France. They can't all be right.
Lots of reporting that Ireland will lose €2 billion in tax revenue because of an increase in its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15%. In case anyone thinks this is some kind of Laffer curve effect, it’s not. The revenue loss stems from another aspect of the global agreement....
This will see more sharing of profit-related taxes. For example some of the tax revenue Ireland raises from ads sold in Germany will now go to the German government.
Some estimates are much higher than €2bn, I remember seeing some research that it would be much closer to €15bn because companies that use Ireland as their European HQ will redomicile to the UK/Germany and other more relevant countries as governments will assert themselves and say you can't have a 1% revenue generating nation as your tax domicile any longer. That means lots of job movement from Ireland to the rest of Europe.
I've heard that Apple are looking to make the UK it's new European HQ as it is already the defacto one anyway. It allows them to remove a cost centre in Ireland. Amazon are supposedly looking at UK/Germany split for their European HQ, German for retail and UK for AWS, shifting out of Luxembourg.
There's going to be a lot more consequences for those countries that exist to allow companies to avoid tax than is currently thought. Ireland in particular is going to lose a lot of high value jobs to the UK and Germany.
I don’t have any problem with Marcus Rashford pushing his campaign using his celebrity at all. I’m not sure I agree with the campaign and feel he is somewhat manipulated and a mouthpiece for a movement behind him but it’s not the end of the world.
What I do have a problem with is that if a footballer came out with views that aren’t shared by the loudest voices on social media and certain areas of the media then I can see a pile-on.
I seem to recall when Frank Lampard made the hideous admission he was a Tory he was vilified by certain sections of the noisier righteous people in the country.
I think that anyone who lauds Marcus Rashford for using his public voice to try and change things in line with his and his circle’s beliefs should also be totally accepting of other public personalities freely espousing their views on politics.
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
More difficult to attack *successfully*, as evidenced by the pathetic efforts on here.
I have no anti-him agenda whatever - rather the opposite, given he is more of a thorn in Johnson's side than most - but there is no need to regard him either as stupid, or as a young Gandhi. People like fame and influence for their own sake, and people can build positions outside of party politics with an intention of pivoting into PP later on - examples as diverse as Reagan, Trump, SKS.
I wouldn’t characterise that as an attack pathetic or otherwise, however ‘Unelected Rashford and Rupe are essentially the same & lefties attacking one & not the other are hypocrites’ would be intellectually pitiful in a ten year old.
I am confused by those attacking Rashford. Many of those attacking him seem to be from a section of the public who have just spent the last decade or more campaigning and lobbying for a fundamental change in our constitutional arrangement almost entirely from a non elected position.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
The people who I heard criticise Rashford most were dinner ladies - they had anecdotes about the amount of food both thrown away and given away.
There didn't seem to be any balance or depth in the reporting of Rashford's campaigns - it was just deemed to be a 'good thing'.
Yes. It is always a danger when a spokesman for a cause is beyond sensible appraisal. IMHO free school dinners are probably a pretty good thing, being a leveller and while no doubt costly, it is finite.
On things like the £20 uplift the difficulty is twofold: history suggests there is no upper limit whatsoever to benefits which will satisfy the critics if delivered by a Tory government; and the critics won't tell you how it should operate as opposed to how it shouldn't.
And those (including Rashford) who campaign act as if spending something and finding the money for it, and taking account of all other expenditure, are three separable subjects. In the grown up political world, as in any household, they are one subject and inseparable.
It is worth noticing that Labour only get elected when it is reasonably obvious that they get this.
I don’t have any problem with Marcus Rashford pushing his campaign using his celebrity at all. I’m not sure I agree with the campaign and feel he is somewhat manipulated and a mouthpiece for a movement behind him but it’s not the end of the world.
What I do have a problem with is that if a footballer came out with views that aren’t shared by the loudest voices on social media and certain areas of the media then I can see a pile-on.
I seem to recall when Frank Lampard made the hideous admission he was a Tory he was vilified by certain sections of the noisier righteous people in the country.
I think that anyone who lauds Marcus Rashford for using his public voice to try and change things in line with his and his circle’s beliefs should also be totally accepting of other public personalities freely espousing their views on politics.
I see sackLauraK is trending on twitter, presumably they want to replace her with Rashford
Well, hard to know for sure. They're nowhere near as vaccinated (particularly in the East) as France/Spain/Italy/etc., so they're potentially pretty vulnerable.
I wouldn't be surprised if they had a nasty Autumn in Thuringia/Mecklenerg/etc.
411 deaths is a huge leap from their "normal", tho their number of daily deaths WAS slowly rising, likewise cases
As we all know one of the habits of Covid is to seek out countries which have been a *tiny bit smug* about their Covid handling, and give them a spanking. As a lesson. Perhaps now it is Germany's turn
Having spent nearly three weeks there this year, I don’t think smug is a fair description. It’s the only place I have been where observance of precautions is consistent, and challenged if you forget; in towns and cities I kept coming across free testing points and vaccination stations, with small queues of properly distanced people waiting for them.
If Germany’s figures do go poor (and a sudden jump in daily deaths is more likely to be random fluctuation since a worsening situation should see a progressive change) the more accurate conclusion is that the new variant is sufficiently contagious that we are now wasting our time with all the precautions.
Agreed re Germans’ behaviour: conformance to the rules is astounding. Definitely not “smug” as Sean claims. Like most things, they take Covid very seriously.
Haven't heard Merkel going on about world beating anything. Imagine if Britain had Germany's relatively somewhat better numbers compared to some neighbours, Johnson would be claiming credit every day
Also Leon's death figures are just wrong.
Happy to believe you know better based on where you are - I think Leon has the numbers from Worldometer. Is there a suggestion that there has been so data revision? I saw that Germany thinks it has miscounted how many its vaccinated, for instance. Have they dumped a load of historic cases and deaths out on the 7th, and made it look like a spike?
Marcus Rashford has a lot of “soft power” which he is using to intervene politically
So does Rupert Murdoch
But the hypocrites on the left cheer one on while condemning the other
They should both run for election if they want to get involved in politics
As is often the case, it's interesting to consider the other side.
Rashford's a celebrity now, and he's using soft power to exert political pressure. If you agree with the cause he's championing, that's great. But imagine he's championing a cause you don't agree with. One you vehemently disagree with, but which others agree with. Is using soft power to exert political pressure wrong then?
My point is that he is becoming a “player” in the political field but one without a democratic mandate.
Weren’t you calling for Rashford to ‘shut the fuck up’ a few days ago? Otoh I don’t remember you calling for citizen of nowhere Rupe to butt out of UK politics. Does that mean you’re a hypocrite of the right?
Yes. I am still of the same view, although more moderate in my language. He wants government spending to increase by £6bn. Great. Get yourself elected on that manifesto.
I don’t particularly remember calling for Rupert to butt out (although he hasn’t been that active for a decade - it’s James who is more involved now. He was born in London so I assume he’s a British citizen although, TBH, I’ve never asked! But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts
Rashford is perfectly entitled to put forward his views on politics, as can anyone else. The government doesn't have to follow or agree with him. One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
He's also doing it skilfully - by focusing on the issues and not being drawn into party politics - which makes him much more difficult to attack.
More difficult to attack *successfully*, as evidenced by the pathetic efforts on here.
I have no anti-him agenda whatever - rather the opposite, given he is more of a thorn in Johnson's side than most - but there is no need to regard him either as stupid, or as a young Gandhi. People like fame and influence for their own sake, and people can build positions outside of party politics with an intention of pivoting into PP later on - examples as diverse as Reagan, Trump, SKS.
I wouldn’t characterise that as an attack pathetic or otherwise, however ‘Unelected Rashford and Rupe are essentially the same & lefties attacking one & not the other are hypocrites’ would be intellectually pitiful in a ten year old.
Well, quite. We can all participate in the discourse, and we are all entitled to as much of an audience is prepared to listen to us. Democracy is not just about voting.
I love England because it is where I am from. For all its faults and failures, it is my family in a way that nowhere else could ever be. I am invested in it like nowhere else on earth. Although there are many other places for which I have very deep affection they can never be a part of me like England is.
I don't get it. Where you are born is an accident of life. I love stuff from England and hate stuff from England just like I do for everywhere.
The only bias I have is generally supporting England or GB in sporting events and even that can be lost if not played in a sporting way.
Why does something become meaningless just because it's an "accident of life" ?
You don't choose your parents, your genes or even your personality - those are also all "accidents of life". And I'd argue that even attraction isn't really a choice.
Human beings aren't wholly fungible biological organisms churned out agnostically by a central processing plant somewhere, and then randomly allocated.
We feel, think and belong and then we choose but just because we can't and don't choose everything that makes us who are today doesn't mean it doesn't have any validity.
I said I didn't get it. I didn't say it wasn't normal. Clearly it is because I appreciate I am in a small minority.
Well, you should get it because I've just explained it to you.
You'll be shaped by those factors more than you realise. I suspect your problem is that you don't want to admit it, still less its validity, because you want to think you're above it all.
Good grief CR you do get very angry and abusive for no reason whatsoever don't you? Just at the drop of a hat. What was that for? We are all having a reasonable chat.
I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.
Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.
Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.
Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
Passing over the generality of your comments, can I ask you to listen to Return of the Grievous Angel by Gram Parsons before finally giving up? The album if poss, but the title track is the killer.
Sorry @IshmaelZ I just did. To me it sounded like a cat being strangled. I know its me. If it helps I love the Eagles and they have some Country in their stuff. Everyone to their own taste I guess. As a Scot from that era my wife like the Bay City Rollers, whereas I think they should have been put down at birth, but we live through the difference.
Lots of reporting that Ireland will lose €2 billion in tax revenue because of an increase in its corporate tax rate from 12.5% to 15%. In case anyone thinks this is some kind of Laffer curve effect, it’s not. The revenue loss stems from another aspect of the global agreement....
This will see more sharing of profit-related taxes. For example some of the tax revenue Ireland raises from ads sold in Germany will now go to the German government.
Some estimates are much higher than €2bn, I remember seeing some research that it would be much closer to €15bn because companies that use Ireland as their European HQ will redomicile to the UK/Germany and other more relevant countries as governments will assert themselves and say you can't have a 1% revenue generating nation as your tax domicile any longer. That means lots of job movement from Ireland to the rest of Europe.
I've heard that Apple are looking to make the UK it's new European HQ as it is already the defacto one anyway. It allows them to remove a cost centre in Ireland. Amazon are supposedly looking at UK/Germany split for their European HQ, German for retail and UK for AWS, shifting out of Luxembourg.
There's going to be a lot more consequences for those countries that exist to allow companies to avoid tax than is currently thought. Ireland in particular is going to lose a lot of high value jobs to the UK and Germany.
Give Biden a round of applause.
Whilst we are talking about greedy tech companies. Yesterday people were bemoaning Intel rejecting the UK for investment in semiconductor fabs in favour of the EU. It was due to Brexit say Intel, but coincidentally Intel are looking for an €8 billion subsidy for the honour of hosting these fabs that will make Intel many, many billions of dollars profit.
Comments
Or does that only apply to the landed gentry sharing their benevolence with oiks?
Rashford's interventions have caused nothing but hysterical consternation on these pages by Government apologists. Never a word around biased reporting in the sensational Sun on Sunday by those same clarion voices
The deal was that we would work collaboratively to find a permanent solution (trusted trader). The EU has refused to engage in the topic.
There was also a carve out on implementation if it would damage community relations which the Unionists have made clear it is doing
Who's afraid of the big bad wolf of counter measures? Besides if they do counter measures, then we can counter their counter measures too.
Now booked for me and Mrs P. Thanks @CarlottaVance.
Both are using their position to push a viewpoint that they believe is important and the press belief is significant enough that their combined fame and interests is important enough to make the news.
Can't he just form a vanity political party or 'politicise' himself by getting involved in a party and be criticised for that instead?
Its especially funny how few of these people got exercised when Blair and Brown reneged on offering a referendum that was part of the election manifesto, signing the EU Constitution the Lisbon Treaty without one despite it being the same thing.
Frost sticks to the Protocol by invoking an Article literally contained within the Protocol: an outrage.
Blair and Brown completely break their manifesto commitment changing our constitution without us having a say: no problem.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2021/10/07/exclusive-governments-switch-greener-fuel-major-factor-behind/ (£££)
I'll get my own coat and disappear to do some real work.
It's also an example of how informal alliances can work in FPTP. Labour's non-participation was perhaps not entirely accidental.
I don't think Rashford is doing it for any personal advantage. He wants to do good, and that is why he is rapidly becoming a national treasure.
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.
Rashford: Gets involved
(Parts of) The Right: No, not like that!!! Quieten down now.
https://twitter.com/keith_r_foster/status/1446248586426130439?s=21
He and his advisers have so far kept a tone which has made it harder to just ignore him as some ranty leftist, and that seems to aggravate some people as it means he's getting listened to by more than just one political tribe.
I'm not even instinctively opposed to ending the UC uplift, though it sounds like if the government is wrong it will cause bug issues.
Very efficient process - and as has been pointed out upthread, free for over 50s (and £14.99 for under-50s).
If he is engaged in tax avoidance schemes, then that would be legitimate grounds to object.
Although to be fair, in the days when I attended Liberal Party Conferences, there was some drinking going on.
Lord Rashford, Crossbench Peer . He then has an unimpeachable mandate to talk about national issues.
And its part time so he can keep up his career.
On the original point, I'm fine with anyone speaking out. If they want the power to actually change government policy directly, rather than by lobbying, they need to get elected. Otherwise, lobby away.
This also applies to the likes of Murdoch. I think he has not been a positive influence on politics in this country. But I absolutely defend his right to do as he does.
Edit: And I have the right to criticise what Murdoch does, while not seeking to stop him; others have the right to criticise Rashford's campaigns.
One thing about his lobbying, it's all out in the open - which is a good thing; unlike say the nuclear lobby.
Around 7 in 10 adults in Great Britain with a child aged 12 to 15 in their household said the child is very or fairly likely to receive a #COVID19 vaccine, according to our Opinions and Lifestyle Survey (22 September to 3 October 2021)
https://twitter.com/ONS/status/1446392617126727683?s=20
And many of them exacerbated by an over focus on London.
So how does a Labour party, and Keir Starmer in particular, offer change when it/he believes in "get some cheap foreigners to keep the wages down" and has an over focus on London.
I agree with you on his right to put forward his views, just as anyone else is.
Toby Earle
@TobyonTV
·
23h
*writes in notebook*
Red
Is there anything they've got right?!
Murdoch controls large elements of the media so can order them to hold an editorial viewpoint and it isn't credited to him, its just how they report it.
That's not the same thing whatsoever.
It also comes back to Orwell's excellent article linked to yesterday about the difference between patriotism and nationalism.
I have no issue with him campaigning for redistributive policies. I think it's time for the government to show him some real consequences of them.
If cost of living goes up, then won't UC go up in the budget as a result?
Though the cost of living going up is nothing new, its been doing that for decades if you aren't an owner occupier and I suspect most UC claimants aren't.
I don’t know about national treasure, though. Can’t see it. Maybe in time.
Good to hear Vice Chancellor of @SussexUni on @BBCr4today defending his colleague @Docstockk from attempts to intimidate & destroy her career for saying biological sex is different from gender. Not all women enjoy such support from their colleagues #misogyny...
Also good to hear @JustinOnWeb say what’s happening to @Docstockk is an attempt to bully her out of her job & stop her from earning a living. As the victim of similar behaviour it’s a joy to hear a BBC journalist calling it out #WomenWontWheesht
https://twitter.com/joannaccherry/status/1446386320763465730?s=20
https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/30/i-can-tolerate-anything-except-the-outgroup/
Scott Alexander starts by detecting outgroup-intolerance (what Orwell broadly calls nationalism) in himself, and when you see why I suspect you will detect it in yourself. Orwell manages to combine having a dig at the Celts for being nationalists with having a dig at them for being wee, puir and stupid, rather remarkably.
Now it happens that I agree with that campaign and disagree with elements of Rashford's but I fail to see why he has any less right to campaign for what he believes in than I or my fellow travellers had to campaign for Brexit, or the Countryside Alliance or any number of other issues, many of which relied on celebrity endorsement and support.
There will be many differences between Scotland and England's roll-out of jabs/jags to teens.
One is that in Scotland, 12-15 year-olds are able to get doses at walk-in venues. In England, this is not permitted.
https://twitter.com/PaulMainwood/status/1446393506382155777?s=20
I don't get it in the sense that I don't get why people like Country music. I know they do and that is fine. I just don't.
Why on earth do you think that I think that makes me superior. It doesn't at all. I even pointed out the cons of this position.
Thanks for identifying I have a problem and that I think I am superior. Very kind of you. That has saved me a psychiatrists bill. Didn't realise you were one and could do that analysis from so little evidence.
Maybe I can do the same and suggest you get less angry. Your performance the other day which got the response from @malcolmg of 'Oh dear' was I'm sure how most of us felt but were too embarrassed for us to post at the time.
What's the chances that this improves any time soon? Furlough has now ended, but that can't have been costing that much by the end. How does the government get borrowing down? Is it by less spending or higher taxes?
https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/governmentpublicsectorandtaxes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/dzls/pusf
Younger son, a Thailand resident who does, in normal times, a lot of international travelling, has had 4 vaccinations, two with vaccines approved by the Chinese and two with vaccines approved in UK.
He has now discovered that in order to bring his family to UK for Christmas, his wife will have to quarantine for five days on arrival. Apparently though, she can do it where they are staying.
If you are describing me as intelligent internationalist left (I'm not sure you are) I'll take the first two obviously, but left? Think you have me mixed up with some else if you think I am of the left. I am not a Tory and I am a LD, but I am to to the right of many Tories on many things including yourself.
Worth remembering that the extra £20 is a massive increase on the standard rate, more than 25% on the old JSA component. I think that our social security rates have been far too low, and would welcome the £20 staying, but keeping £10 would probably more than undo the cuts imposed by Osbourne not increasing the rates by inflation.
Police are ungluing protesters from eco-mob Insulate Britain who defied a court injunction by gluing themselves to the road at J25 of the M25
https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1446396544085807104?s=20
There didn't seem to be any balance or depth in the reporting of Rashford's campaigns - it was just deemed to be a 'good thing'.
https://twitter.com/Russia/status/1446131525385293833?s=20
Much better would be a 99% tax on professional footballers. They're mostly stupid overpaid loudmouths anyway.
Americans think USA is the best country, Brits Britain, French France. They can't all be right.
I’m uncomfortable with any lobby group or special interest having too much power.
What I do have a problem with is that if a footballer came out with views that aren’t shared by the loudest voices on social media and certain areas of the media then I can see a pile-on.
I seem to recall when Frank Lampard made the hideous admission he was a Tory he was vilified by certain sections of the noisier righteous people in the country.
I think that anyone who lauds Marcus Rashford for using his public voice to try and change things in line with his and his circle’s beliefs should also be totally accepting of other public personalities freely espousing their views on politics.
On things like the £20 uplift the difficulty is twofold: history suggests there is no upper limit whatsoever to benefits which will satisfy the critics if delivered by a Tory government; and the critics won't tell you how it should operate as opposed to how it shouldn't.
And those (including Rashford) who campaign act as if spending something and finding the money for it, and taking account of all other expenditure, are three separable subjects. In the grown up political world, as in any household, they are one subject and inseparable.
It is worth noticing that Labour only get elected when it is reasonably obvious that they get this.
86 deaths yesterday. Previous days lower I think. Probably worldometer adjusting their shit figures to bring them in line
On vaccines, I know a few people who are vaccinated unofficially with leftover doses there was no way to record, so could be true.
I don’t particularly remember calling for Rupert to butt out (although he hasn’t been that active for a decade - it’s James who is more involved now. He was born in London so I assume he’s a British citizen although, TBH, I’ve never asked! But it would be wrong for a media group to be pursuing an explicit campaigning agenda across multiple fronts