What is Sunak up to? – politicalbetting.com
Comments
-
I am not sure that is the issue with Lineker thenFrancisUrquhart said:
He was snapped in the back of the ministerial car without a mask, which isn't against the rules (but isn't a great look).Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do not know the Hancock story but if he was in a shop without a mask and put it down to old age, then yesbigjohnowls said:
Like Hancock today thenBig_G_NorthWales said:
He really is a hypocrite and 'old age' is an insult to those of us who really are in old ageisam said:0 -
Either Biden is going to win easily, or the polling industry just needs to shut down.HYUFD said:twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318270338631897094?s=20
twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318268996907663369?s=200 -
Come on, felix, you can't expect self-professed internationalists and men of the world to know or care about what's happening beyond the cliffs of Dover! That would require actually putting their principles into practice, and that's just not fair...felix said:
Do you really believe that drivel? Most countires are struggling with Covid in identical ways to the UK - all the same issues and tensions are playing out - some are doing better and some are doing worse. Try reading the news in some other countries - everything happening in the UK - good and bad - is pretty much happening everywhere.IanB2 said:
After six months of mostly idiotic decision making from our government and parliament, outdone by every alternative source of decision making at home and abroad, the sooner Westminster loses some powers, the better.Jonathan said:So Britain ceasing to exist is less important to Phillip than Britain leaving the EU. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Reminds me of my Zx Spectrum playing Monopoly. The AI would do anything to complete a set, including giving me the properties in the set.
Utterly self defeating.1 -
Income tax is about a third of UK government revenue.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
He’s standing for for increased unemployment, particularly of the young, and destruction of businesses.Big_G_NorthWales said:In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
And you support that.
Well those in work and with wealth will have to pay more in welfare for the unemployed. What a sensible use of their money .... not.0 -
Trump staffers are looking for new jobs.
14 days to go but I'm still struggling to see how Biden wins less than 290 electoral college votes.0 -
I don't see the evidence for that - MPs might have been closer but he'd have carried the members vote.williamglenn said:
No, I think she would have won anyway.Casino_Royale said:
Shouldn't she be thanking him?williamglenn said:
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.FF43 said:More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
His first knifing of Boris led to her becoming PM.
Otherwise she'd have been a Hunt-like also ran.
We know how good she is at campaigning.1 -
I keep saying, Trump is history and it will not be kindHYUFD said:0 -
Finally. Hurrah! BBC finally accepts that Nottingham case numbers are dropping.
0 -
To be fair, he'd probably been on a late night bender in a House of Commons bar.FrancisUrquhart said:
He was snapped in the back of the ministerial car without a mask, which isn't against the rules (but isn't a great look).Big_G_NorthWales said:
I do not know the Hancock story but if he was in a shop without a mask and put it down to old age, then yesbigjohnowls said:
Like Hancock today thenBig_G_NorthWales said:
He really is a hypocrite and 'old age' is an insult to those of us who really are in old ageisam said:0 -
Off the topic of my head one agreement that Australia has with the EU is the mutual recognition of Protected Geographical Status, as part of the Withdrawal Agreement that continues post-transition with the whole of the UK (not just NI) too.alex_ said:
Lol, which particular features of the Withdrawal agreement (which incidentally doesn't "expire" at all, not "fully expire") are you holding on to as beneficial to the future trading relationship between the UK and the EU? Northern Ireland gets something out of it, and that's about it. Although we've even put that in grave jeopardy.Philip_Thompson said:
It is Australia terms. We have an agreement with the EU too for certain issues, the Withdrawal Agreement and it doesn't fully expire 31/12/20.IanB2 said:
It’s not even Australia terms anyway - utterly cynical and dishonest though the use of that term by leavers is: Australia already has trading agreements with all of its closest and largest trading partners, has about twenty individual agreements with the EU ten of which deal with trade, and is exceedingly keen to replace its existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU.FF43 said:
But then you might as well say, "look, there is no prospect of deal, let the chips fall where they may". It's the infantile nonsense that sucks everyone's energy. Also what's the point of "Australia Terms"? Just say, "no deal - we can cope with it".alex_ said:
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-talks-eu-michel-barnier-b1159227.html
So he really is engineering No Deal
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
Furthermore we too, like Australia, would remain keen to replace our soon to be existing situation with a comprehensive trading deal with the EU as soon as they're prepared to meet our demands. Just like Australia.
So yes, Australia style.0 -
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be savedCyclefree said:
He’s standing for for increased unemployment, particularly of the young, and destruction of businesses.Big_G_NorthWales said:In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
And you support that.
Well those in work and with wealth will have to pay more in welfare for the unemployed. What a sensible use of their money .... not.0 -
-
Is this like a Brexit deal deadline?Scott_xP said:1 -
She was ahead of him in polling of party members.Casino_Royale said:
I don't see the evidence for that - MPs might have been closer but he'd have carried the members vote.williamglenn said:
No, I think she would have won anyway.Casino_Royale said:
Shouldn't she be thanking him?williamglenn said:
I have the feeling that Theresa May would enjoy nothing more than destroying Michael Gove's political reputation beyond repair. She probably has a brutal speech ready in case we do face No Deal.FF43 said:More on this, Michael Gove spent a session in the Commons this afternoon not answering people's specific questions. Including Theresa May on security . Frankly because he doesn't have any answers.
His first knifing of Boris led to her becoming PM.
Otherwise she'd have been a Hunt-like also ran.
We know how good she is at campaigning.
https://yougov.co.uk/topics/politics/articles-reports/2016/06/29/theresa-may-storms-ahead-boris-among-tory-party-me
0 -
Re: methinks folks are getting a bit carried away by result in one poll showing slight rebound for Tillis, but with Cunningham still in the lead.kinabalu said:0 -
Is this like their Brexit ultimatums?Scott_xP said:
0 -
Some urgency over Manchester.
https://twitter.com/paulwaugh/status/1318297541604265992
An ultimatum, but will it be followed up?0 -
22 mins ago — Former Tottenham and England striker Gary Lineker has issued an apology after being seen shopping without a maskFrancisUrquhart said:
"Blamed old age"....FFS....that is pathetic non-excuse. He isn't some 90 year old with dementia. Just hands up, I did wrong.isam said:0 -
It was the "in my old age" quip. Just say, I made a mistake, end of. Instead he tried to turn it into a joke (in my old age, I went to the shop, wondered why people were giving me daggers), after he has lambasted anybody who has questioned mask wearing relentlessly.bigjohnowls said:
22 mins ago — Former Tottenham and England striker Gary Lineker has issued an apology after being seen shopping without a maskFrancisUrquhart said:
"Blamed old age"....FFS....that is pathetic non-excuse. He isn't some 90 year old with dementia. Just hands up, I did wrong.isam said:2 -
It will be Bozo's Neville Chamberlain moment.Scott_xP said:0 -
That's been done. The forms are there. You can find the forms on the government website already.Stuartinromford said:
And that is the final crowning glory.alex_ said:
I know the difference. It was you who heard her comments and concluded that the EU were folding.Philip_Thompson said:
Do you understand the difference between the European Council and Merkel?alex_ said:
So last week when Merkel made some comments about "need for the EU to compromise" and you were back in "told you they would fold, we hold all the cards mode", it turns out it wouldn't make any difference because the EU "folding" just meant giving us a deal which wasn't any better than no deal anyway.Philip_Thompson said:
Precisely. Because we don't want the obese deal that we had.alex_ said:
This "thin deal" being what the Government are actually asking for...Philip_Thompson said:
That's what I said this morning. Given we're not getting much from the thin deal we want anyway, there is no point paying exhorbitant amounts for it. People lump together all the "cost" of leaving the EU, like there being extra paperwork, and bundle that together as a reason to have a deal - but the paperwork will largely be there anyway deal or no deal so its moot.alex_ said:
Allegedly he thought he would look silly if he reversed position so rapidly. So maybe next week.CorrectHorseBattery said:https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/boris-johnson-brexit-talks-eu-michel-barnier-b1159227.html
So he really is engineering No Deal
Although at some point they'll realise that the "deal" they are pursuing won't actually help much more than no deal. Tariffs or no tariffs, they won't be the primary barrier to trade in the aftermath of January 1st. So given the choice between deal and no deal will probably conclude that they might as well no deal.
If you want to determine if the deal is worth having you need to think of what will be in the deal - not what was in the EU which is already gone.
Merkel's comments were reasonable and made it look like they were folding, but then the European Council agreed text was not Merkel's comments. As soon as the European Council's agreed text came out, before any UK response, I immediately said "walk away, no deal". Barnier's mandate is not set by Merkel it is set by the Council and if the EU wants a deal then the Council can issue a new mandate.
But regardless - that ignores the point that the UK's best case deal, the famed "Canada deal", is not much better in material terms to no deal. Maybe a bit better in the medium term, but it will still mean chaos on Jan 1st. Because we aren't remotely prepared for either scenario. So really even if the EU did "fold" and give us what we are asking for, it still wouldn't amount to much.
Putting aside the question of what was suggested in 2016, 2017 and 2019, suppose the mega brains in this government had really thought that a relationship without a single market or customs arrangement was the desired landing point. From that moment onwards, it's really obvious that movements across the border are going to be accompanied by lots of red tape. Either literal people sitting in booths checking forms filled in by other people, or the electronic equivalent.
We'll put the question of what small government / libertarian types are doing creating all this red tape to another side. If that's what you, as a government, want, it's your duty to ensure that the systems are in place and working in time. The booths, the people to sit in the booths, the forms. Or the computer systems. Or probably both. You have a responsibility to help businesses navigate the new systems in bulk- because a lot more international trade is going to need forms than has for the last 30 years. And it's not.
Why not? Can't blame the EU; this stuff would have been needed had the EU given the UK exactly what it wanted. Was the aim to not scare the horses by revealing how rubbish things are going to be for real businesses in 2021? Did the government not understand the consequences of their own policy? Was it that the mega brains in this government have worse project management skills than a bunch of toddlers at a soft play centre? Something else?
Most of the forms have always been there since the forms existed already for non-EU trade anyway.
If you need more information it is online: https://www.gov.uk/transition
If you want to export to the EU there is a specific page here: https://www.gov.uk/prepare-to-export-from-great-britain-from-january-2021
Its almost as if the issues are being tackled and not left for soft play isn't it?0 -
1
-
If we end up in a serious recession or depression what will be spent then on unemployment welfare and how much tax revenue will be lost? That money would be best spent now to stop that happening.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
As for how long, I would link that to progress on vaccines. Plus I would raise taxes on the wealthy and those with secure jobs. See my suggestions here - https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2020/05/01/thinking-the-unthinkable-hows-this-going-to-be-paid-for/. It’s not the case that I have not tried to address the financial implications of this. If say in 6 months there is no sign of a vaccine then stop, lift lockdowns and we learn to live with this virus.
I appreciate the concern about grand-children but there is a whole generation of our children who are facing a bleak employment future and we owe it to them not to be as sanguine as Sunak appears to be about looming increases in unemployment.0 -
This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.0 -
Unless you know when an effective vaccine is going be available, it is not even possible to say which jobs can be saved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be saved
The hospitality industry looks to me as though -- even in the most propitious case of a vaccine next year -- it is just not going to get back to normal quickly.
In practice, I expect a vaccine (when it comes) will not be that efficient. And many people will be pretty reluctant to eat out, even if permitted by the regulations.
So, I can see the hospitality or travel industry taking ~ 5 years to recover. I hope I am wrong ... but many of those jobs look unviable to me on the timescale of years, not months.
Cyclefree's idea of "a Covid solidarity tax" from those who have been unaffected or done well to help those in difficulty is a good one, but I have no idea how or whether it can be implemented.0 -
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
Even if you do when one is coming, we really don't know how the future will be. Will all these professional office jobs that are now being done from home continue like that, because that could have huge impact on a whole range of office support services and wide hospitality sector.YBarddCwsc said:
Unless you know when a vaccine is going be available, it is not even possible to say which jobs can be saved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be saved
The hospitality industry looks to me as though -- even in the most propitious case of a vaccine next year -- it is just not going to get back to normal quickly.
In practice, I expect a vaccine (when it comes) will not be that efficient. And many people will be pretty reluctant to eat out, even if permitted by the regulations.
So, I can see the hospitality or travel industry taking ~ 5 years to recover. I hope I am wrong ... but many of those jobs look unviable to me on the timescale of years, not months.
Cyclefree's idea of "a Covid solidarity tax" from those who have been unaffected or done well to help those in difficulty is a good one, but I have no idea how or whether it can be implemented.0 -
I don’t wish to be rude but easy for you to say when you have a comfortable pension which has allowed you to go on lovely cruises around the world. Try saying it to those in their early / mid-20’s with no jobs, little hope of finding one, few savings and not much hope of any sort of normal life: independence, a home of their own, a family - let alone luxuries like foreign travel.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be savedCyclefree said:
He’s standing for for increased unemployment, particularly of the young, and destruction of businesses.Big_G_NorthWales said:In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
And you support that.
Well those in work and with wealth will have to pay more in welfare for the unemployed. What a sensible use of their money .... not.
Some of the money could be given in grants to those wishing to close existing businesses and set up new ones. Those people are the entrepreneurs of today and the future. Give them the opportunity to use those skills. Give them some hope. Not cliches from Central Office.3 -
No Deal better than an expensive Dealrottenborough said:0 -
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.1 -
So after letting it be known that they wanted the Mayors to "own it", Jenrick baulks at owning it, and "recommends" Boris own it.Scott_xP said:
Nice hospital pass.
Well played, Sir.0 -
There are a gazillion ridiculous stories already floating around the grubbier bits of Twitter.isam said:One of my mates, who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, has been saying for a while that there is something that will leak on Biden which will derail his bid for POTUS. I didnt really believe him. Maybe what @Alistair linked to is it
I’m surprised that someone who’s a bit of a conspiracy theorist isn’t talking about several ‘somethings’.
0 -
Capitalism bolt shot if they do that.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
0 -
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
Mail are anti-lockdown tomorrow...by Wednesday they will be back on the lockdown must happen, as cases rise 20000% in a day.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1318302173713793025?s=200 -
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1318169748933398529Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
'Among people who voted for Trump in 2016, 8% say they now support Biden while 89% say they'll back him again. Biden is doing much better among Hillary Clinton voters: Just 2% say they support Trump, while 95% back the former vice president.FrancisUrquhart said:
Either Biden is going to win easily, or the polling industry just needs to shut down.HYUFD said:twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318270338631897094?s=20
twitter.com/Politics_Polls/status/1318268996907663369?s=20
In addition to faring better among 2016 Trump and Clinton voters, Biden gets more support than Trump among 2016 third-party voters (39%-31%) and nonvoters (62%-26%).
The IBD/TIPP 2020 election poll shows Trump winning among men, 49%-45%, more narrowly than his 11-point advantage in 2016.
Women favor the Democrat by a 53%-40% margin in the latest Trump vs. Biden poll update, a bit less than Trump's 15-point deficit among women in 2016.
White voters favor Trump by 9 points, but they backed him by a 15-point margin in 2016, the IBD/TIPP 2020 presidential poll update finds.
Black voters back Biden, 87%-9%, in today's presidential poll update. Trump trails Biden among Hispanics, 27%-68% in the latest IBD/TIPP 2020 election poll. In 2016, Trump lost among Hispanic voters, 28%-66%.'
https://www.investors.com/news/trump-vs-biden-poll-shows-real-race-ibd-tipp-2020-presidential-poll/0 -
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.1 -
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
If there's a plot to derail Biden then they have left it too late. Millions have already voted.Nigelb said:
There are a gazillion ridiculous stories already floating around the grubbier bits of Twitter.isam said:One of my mates, who is a bit of a conspiracy theorist, has been saying for a while that there is something that will leak on Biden which will derail his bid for POTUS. I didnt really believe him. Maybe what @Alistair linked to is it
I’m surprised that someone who’s a bit of a conspiracy theorist isn’t talking about several ‘somethings’.2 -
That is something that has been said in many economies - just before they achieved... interesting levels of inflation.Roy_G_Biv said:
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.1 -
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.0 -
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.0 -
I imagine it's just like most other people, celebrity or non celebrity. You suddenly decide at a moment's notice you could do with a few things from the shop. Something for dinner. Sh*t you haven't got your mask. The shop is basically empty. You decide it really isn't going to harm anyone to pop in, use the auto check out and pop out again, not passing within metres of anyone.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
Some photographer snaps you and says outrageous it all is, especially given you've been strongly advocating wearing masks in public places. It really isn't.
Of course this sort of issue wouldn't even arise if shops provided some cheap disposable masks on entry for anyone who didn't have one.1 -
Mail has been consistently anti lockdownFrancisUrquhart said:Mail are anti-lockdown tomorrow...by Wednesday they will be back on the lockdown must happen, as cases rise 20000% in a day.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1318302173713793025?s=200 -
(apart from Dom's).Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be savedCyclefree said:
He’s standing for for increased unemployment, particularly of the young, and destruction of businesses.Big_G_NorthWales said:In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
And you support that.
Well those in work and with wealth will have to pay more in welfare for the unemployed. What a sensible use of their money .... not.0 -
"Can John Leslie's reputation ever recover from our efforts to destroy his reputation?"FrancisUrquhart said:Mail are anti-lockdown tomorrow...by Wednesday they will be back on the lockdown must happen, as cases rise 20000% in a day.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1318302173713793025?s=200 -
Perhaps we could use all those empty Nightengale hospitals for Covid and get the NHS back to looking after patients?Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
I think, like some others, he's fallen into the mindset of attributing everything bad to lockdown. It "logically" follows that lifting lockdown would fix all the bad things.Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:
--AS0 -
Quite a number of people, here, were blythely writing off city centres a few days back. Apparently only Tory/FuManchu* landlords would lose out. All the people working for them or for businesses in the same eco system would be unaffected. Or something.FrancisUrquhart said:
Even if you do when one is coming, we really don't know how the future will be. Will all these professional office jobs that are now being done from home continue like that, because that could have huge impact on a whole range of office support services and wide hospitality sector.YBarddCwsc said:
Unless you know when a vaccine is going be available, it is not even possible to say which jobs can be saved.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be saved
The hospitality industry looks to me as though -- even in the most propitious case of a vaccine next year -- it is just not going to get back to normal quickly.
In practice, I expect a vaccine (when it comes) will not be that efficient. And many people will be pretty reluctant to eat out, even if permitted by the regulations.
So, I can see the hospitality or travel industry taking ~ 5 years to recover. I hope I am wrong ... but many of those jobs look unviable to me on the timescale of years, not months.
Cyclefree's idea of "a Covid solidarity tax" from those who have been unaffected or done well to help those in difficulty is a good one, but I have no idea how or whether it can be implemented.
First against the wall in the-end-of-city-centres would be - hundreds of pubs....
*Racism against landlords is OK apparently.0 -
It will be Murder Tuesday quite soon.....FrancisUrquhart said:Mail are anti-lockdown tomorrow...by Wednesday they will be back on the lockdown must happen, as cases rise 20000% in a day.
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1318302173713793025?s=200 -
The risks of that are really quite low right now. Consumer demand is in the toilet, unemployment is going up. The main pro-inflationary risk is increased costs of imports, which is why the government shouldn't be messing about with Brexit right now. Just sign up to something to keep trade stable, and if you really need to, revisit it in a couple of years when the coronavirus situation has settled into something more stable. But for now, yeah, borrow.Malmesbury said:
That is something that has been said in many economies - just before they achieved... interesting levels of inflation.Roy_G_Biv said:
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
Sorry, I meant print.Roy_G_Biv said:
The risks of that are really quite low right now. Consumer demand is in the toilet, unemployment is going up. The main pro-inflationary risk is increased costs of imports, which is why the government shouldn't be messing about with Brexit right now. Just sign up to something to keep trade stable, and if you really need to, revisit it in a couple of years when the coronavirus situation has settled into something more stable. But for now, yeah, borrow.Malmesbury said:
That is something that has been said in many economies - just before they achieved... interesting levels of inflation.Roy_G_Biv said:
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.0 -
Great Politico headline, which got me really excited to see the video.
“Lindsey Graham runs for his life”
Sadly metaphorical.0 -
I don't see why she should shut up about it if she feels strongly on it. Any more than any non-"celebrity" should have to refrain from posting their opinions on twitter or anywhere. People shouldn't hang on a celebrity's every word just because they are a celebrity. But being famous shouldn't disqualify their right to express their views.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.0 -
See if you can spot why that might not be possible.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps we could use all those empty Nightengale hospitals for Covid and get the NHS back to looking after patients?Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:1 -
What about @BluestBlue's suggestion at the top of this thread (19:08) of a global debt reset?Philip_Thompson said:
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.0 -
Being paid millions by the BBC should though.alex_ said:
I don't see why she should shut up about it if she feels strongly on it. Any more than any non-"celebrity" should have to refrain from posting their opinions on twitter or anywhere. People shouldn't hang on a celebrity's every word just because they are a celebrity. But being famous shouldn't disqualify their right to express their views.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.
JK Rowling gets her money from her own private efforts, from people who choose to get her products or read her books or watch her films, not from licence fee payers who don't have a choice by law to pay even if they want other live TV channels or programs not his.0 -
That's actually correct. Just as his own supporters can believe no ill about him, his opponents won't believe a word he says, even when he accidentally speaks the truth.OllyT said:
Straw grasping methinks, Even if there is anything in it it's primarily about Biden's son not Joe himself and most anti-Trumpers will just assume it's more lies from the mouth of Trump or the usual GOP dirty tricks. When you lie on a daily basis you tend not to have much credibility outside the core. Trump could announce a successful vaccine next week but very few would believe him.MrEd said:
Someone posted a link to a Twitter feed that suggested the Hunter Biden scandal was now been brought up by voters.not_on_fire said:Watching Fox desperately trying to spin the Hunter Biden storm-in-a-teacup into something damaging is a joy to behold.
Be careful. That was the line about Cunningham-Tillis in NC and the immediate polls saying Cunningham's lead was the same or heightened. Everyone said the scandal hadn't resonated. And now Cunningham's lead has suddenly shrunk.
These things take time to work through.0 -
Terrible, terrible idea. Far worse than printing money.Benpointer said:
What about @BluestBlue's suggestion at the top of this thread (19:08) of a global debt reset?Philip_Thompson said:
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.
Printing money resets debt too but it does so via paying off the bond holders not by wiping them out.0 -
Is it because Kim Kardashian has contracted all the surgeons for plastic surgery?YBarddCwsc said:
See if you can spot why that might not be possible.Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps we could use all those empty Nightengale hospitals for Covid and get the NHS back to looking after patients?Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
-
I think the truth lies somewhere between.felix said:
Do you really believe that drivel? Most countires are struggling with Covid in identical ways to the UK - all the same issues and tensions are playing out - some are doing better and some are doing worse. Try reading the news in some other countries - everything happening in the UK - good and bad - is pretty much happening everywhere.IanB2 said:
After six months of mostly idiotic decision making from our government and parliament, outdone by every alternative source of decision making at home and abroad, the sooner Westminster loses some powers, the better.Jonathan said:So Britain ceasing to exist is less important to Phillip than Britain leaving the EU. What a pathetic state of affairs.
Reminds me of my Zx Spectrum playing Monopoly. The AI would do anything to complete a set, including giving me the properties in the set.
Utterly self defeating.
Our government has been pretty poor in implementation, and has been very slow in making decisions. It’s also made some blunders, and our economic figures and total deaths compare pretty badly with many countries.
But it could have done worse.0 -
He doesn't seem to understand that hospitals can not function normally in a pandemic, nor can they effectively treat patients by ignoring the virus.rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1318169748933398529Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
Democracies owe the money to despots and dictators. We should tell them to do one.Benpointer said:
What about @BluestBlue's suggestion at the top of this thread (19:08) of a global debt reset?Philip_Thompson said:
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.0 -
This is a better story on it: https://www.vice.com/en/article/epdgm4/new-yorker-suspends-jeffrey-toobin-for-zoom-dick-incidentrottenborough said:This doesn't translate to proper English in the way she means:
https://twitter.com/KatiePavlich/status/1318279804135874563
Not so much an "election simulation" but an "erection stimulation".1 -
What happens when the bonds are owned by a central bank?Philip_Thompson said:
Terrible, terrible idea. Far worse than printing money.Benpointer said:
What about @BluestBlue's suggestion at the top of this thread (19:08) of a global debt reset?Philip_Thompson said:
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.
Printing money resets debt too but it does so via paying off the bond holders not by wiping them out.0 -
Qualified agreement. Artists put something of their views into their work, and knowing a bit about an artist's views can really spoil (or enhance!) reading/seeing their work.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.
Not a commentary on JKR... the whole transphobia debate leaves me a little cold and quite confused, and as for the Harry Potter books... well, let's just say she has assembled other people's ideas into something rather enjoyable. But I can't listen to Gary Glitter or Michael Jackson without uncomfortable reminders of who they are/were. And reading, say, Primo Levi is really enhanced when you know his life story.
But none of that really applies to a tv presenter, or a footballer.0 -
-
BBC Newsnight proposes the idea that Keir wasn't as pro-Remain as he seemed, I have said this before myself.
I think he was pro-Remain but I think he was pro-Remain out of leadership ambition as opposed to needing to stop Brexit0 -
"Inspiration" - Len McCluskey....as in an inspiration for Labour voting Northerners to vote Tory...HYUFD said:twitter.com/lewis_goodall/status/1318299292298317824?s=20
0 -
It's Thatcher's fault for abolishing Tyne and Wear. It's been replaced by an absurd patchwork of confusing overlapping tiers of bureaucracy owing to stupid local rivalries. Tyne and Wear built the Metro and a fantastic system of integrated public transport all around it, which the Tories then dismantled. Basically, this country has just been regressing since 1979.SandyRentool said:
Yes, as we've got a dog's breakfast where the mayoral areas in the NE don't match the police force areas. Three forces, two mayors and a first class county in the middle.Gallowgate said:
“North of Tyne” mayor.alex_ said:
Which Mayor? Andy Burnham is.dixiedean said:
Point of order. Our Mayor is NOT the PCC.alex_ said:
He couldn't impose it because his MPs weren't having it, and the Mayor's are in charge of implementing it (including instructing the police as police commissioners).FrancisUrquhart said:
Nonsense. Also my point is making each T3 deployment negotiable....I know we love our own regional identities, but realistically there really isn't much different between Liverpool, Manchester, Sheffield, Birmingham, etc, when it comes to what to shut down to reduce transmission. We aren't talking about the difference between NYC and Boise, and unlike the later of those locations, there aren't 100s of miles to the next large city.IanB2 said:
Boris didn’t have the political capital to impose it on unwilling local authorities and MPs. For reasons that are well rehearsed.FrancisUrquhart said:
Making the T3 negotiable was up there with one of the biggest mistakes of this system.Scott_xP said:0 -
They're effectively written off, hence why I said those debts have been 'reset' by printing money. But that's increased the money supply and can lead to inflation ultimately if you're not careful, its not cost-free.eek said:
What happens when the bonds are owned by a central bank?Philip_Thompson said:
Terrible, terrible idea. Far worse than printing money.Benpointer said:
What about @BluestBlue's suggestion at the top of this thread (19:08) of a global debt reset?Philip_Thompson said:
Increased money supply ultimately causes inflation. If all countries do it then all countries can face inflation simultaneously.Benpointer said:
Because of devaluation? Since every major currency is facing the same challenge wouldn't there be a cancelling out?rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
One reason that inflation has been so low in recent years is in part because its been low globally not just domestically. Letting rip on spending is not cost-free which is why "MMT" is just pure wishful thinking nonsense.
However I'd still do it right now as an exception. Desperate times call for desperate measures. However strictly as an exception not a rule of life.
Printing money resets debt too but it does so via paying off the bond holders not by wiping them out.0 -
a couple of items of hospital news...
- My mother-in-law has gone into hospital.
- A friend in Poland says that his wife (a nurse) has been told that some hospitals are now turning away cases. And that hers will start to do so shortly....0 -
Who is going to staff the Nightingales?Beibheirli_C said:
Perhaps we could use all those empty Nightengale hospitals for Covid and get the NHS back to looking after patients?Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
-
Seems a lot of Eastern Europe that escaped much of the first wave as being hit hard in the 2nd wave.Malmesbury said:a couple of items of hospital news...
- My mother-in-law has gone into hospital.
- A friend in Poland says that his wife (a nurse) has been told that some hospitals are now turning away cases. And that hers will start to do so shortly....0 -
When my wife and I started we were penny pinching for some years but through hard work in founding a business and working nearly every hour 24/7 to moving on into a completely different business creating well paid employment for 20, who are still friends today though I have retired for 11 years, we innovated and adopted, adapted and improvedCyclefree said:
I don’t wish to be rude but easy for you to say when you have a comfortable pension which has allowed you to go on lovely cruises around the world. Try saying it to those in their early / mid-20’s with no jobs, little hope of finding one, few savings and not much hope of any sort of normal life: independence, a home of their own, a family - let alone luxuries like foreign travel.Big_G_NorthWales said:
There comes a time in this crisis when it has to be accepted every job cannot be savedCyclefree said:
He’s standing for for increased unemployment, particularly of the young, and destruction of businesses.Big_G_NorthWales said:In all of these increasing demands for more and more money and no job loses to be considered, I have a quiet admiration for Rishi as he stands firm with the public purse, even against public opinion
It increasingly obvious that nearly half the population are either in the public sector or are retired and see little or no financial penalties in lockdown and of course many are saving money by WFH avoiding the daily commute
However, the money to pay for the public sector mainly comes from a thriving private sector and the more it is crushed everyone will be facing big tax rises and I expect severe wage restraint. Of course the wealthy will have to pay more and I support that but they can usually be more agile and minimise tax
A full lockdown may come about but right now local lockdowns need to be implemented and policed before the nuclear option of the lockdown of the whole country as seen in Ireland tonight
And you support that.
Well those in work and with wealth will have to pay more in welfare for the unemployed. What a sensible use of their money .... not.
Some of the money could be given in grants to those wishing to close existing businesses and set up new ones. Those people are the entrepreneurs of today and the future. Give them the opportunity to use those skills. Give them some hope. Not cliches from Central Office.
It is clear that covid will have a fundamental change in society even possibly like the miners but new jobs will be created and the old ones disappear. Rishi has the job of protecting as many as possible and to be fair he has, and is but at a cost of circa 2 billion a week by Xmas we will have spent virtually half the annual NHS budget
The help needs to be targeted to those on minimum wage and I understand with universal credit Rishi scheme for those on minimum wages will see approx 90% of their income
I do not want to seem unsympathetic especially in regard to the real issues your family face but we will get beyond this and the economy and jobs will arise and hopefully very quickly, though how the debt is paid I have no idea1 -
The Minister who approved the spending of large amounts of government money in the constituency of his deputy who, by an amazing coincidence, approved the spending of a large amount of government money in Jenrick’s constituency tells Mancunians that they’ll have to lump it.dixiedean said:
So after letting it be known that they wanted the Mayors to "own it", Jenrick baulks at owning it, and "recommends" Boris own it.Scott_xP said:
Nice hospital pass.
Well played, Sir.
Lovely.1 -
Well given i WAS talking about JK Rowling, i'm not sure what the BBC has to do with it. But anyway i don't agree. Why should working for the BBC prevent you from publicly expressing views, as long as it is clear that the views are your own and not those of your employer. Everyone knows Lineker is a football/sports pundit, paid yes to present and express HIS opinions on football.Philip_Thompson said:
Being paid millions by the BBC should though.alex_ said:
I don't see why she should shut up about it if she feels strongly on it. Any more than any non-"celebrity" should have to refrain from posting their opinions on twitter or anywhere. People shouldn't hang on a celebrity's every word just because they are a celebrity. But being famous shouldn't disqualify their right to express their views.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.
JK Rowling gets her money from her own private efforts, from people who choose to get her products or read her books or watch her films, not from licence fee payers who don't have a choice by law to pay even if they want other live TV channels or programs not his.
I don't see a link between the source of his salary and his job, and right to express his wider views on a personal twitter account. Possibly for a political reporter/presenter who needs to maintain a reputation for political neutrality/even handedness. But not a sports presenter.1 -
The problem is that if you ignore the patients then soon you start clocking up dead bodies from non-Covid issues, and it looks like that is happening.Foxy said:
He doesn't seem to understand that hospitals can not function normally in a pandemic, nor can they effectively treat patients by ignoring the virus.rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1318169748933398529Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
Isn't the problem there the funding structure of the BBC? I mean, it's not Gary Linker's fault that you can't watch ITV without paying the BBC. He could shut up, wear a mask, repudiate all his beliefs, and/or resign and that still won't change a thing about the license fee.Philip_Thompson said:
Being paid millions by the BBC should though.alex_ said:
I don't see why she should shut up about it if she feels strongly on it. Any more than any non-"celebrity" should have to refrain from posting their opinions on twitter or anywhere. People shouldn't hang on a celebrity's every word just because they are a celebrity. But being famous shouldn't disqualify their right to express their views.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.
JK Rowling gets her money from her own private efforts, from people who choose to get her products or read her books or watch her films, not from licence fee payers who don't have a choice by law to pay even if they want other live TV channels or programs not his.
FWIW I stopped paying my licence fee years and years ago, because I don't agree with the way it's funded. But even if I did pay, I don't feel like I would have a claim on what Lineker is allowed to say and do.0 -
He will be in his elementHYUFD said:0 -
I'm with you on this. The debt is with the BoE who printed the money. Some say the debt will have to be repaid. Oh no it doesn't. It doesn't require extra taxes, austerity or a debt to our children or grandchildren. It simply will not be repaid. It never has been. It just grows. It's unimportant. We should stop measuring it.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
We should manage growth and inflation instead.
1 -
..
OK Can you please delete your post?FrancisUrquhart said:
Not sure it is wise posting your IP address....Barnesian said:
What's this?0 -
Fuck the North say the Tories, level them down0
-
Not sure it is wise posting your IP address....Barnesian said:
What's this?0 -
Corbyn has moved onto Bolivia now which elected a socialist president today, along with a quick picture of him with re elected New Zealand PM Jacinda ArdernBig_G_NorthWales said:
He will be in his elementHYUFD said:
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1317508179077586946?s=20
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-54591963
https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1317811315881238529?s=20
0 -
You know there's a post edit facility right?Roy_G_Biv said:
Sorry, I meant print.Roy_G_Biv said:
The risks of that are really quite low right now. Consumer demand is in the toilet, unemployment is going up. The main pro-inflationary risk is increased costs of imports, which is why the government shouldn't be messing about with Brexit right now. Just sign up to something to keep trade stable, and if you really need to, revisit it in a couple of years when the coronavirus situation has settled into something more stable. But for now, yeah, borrow.Malmesbury said:
That is something that has been said in many economies - just before they achieved... interesting levels of inflation.Roy_G_Biv said:
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
Click on the little 'settings' icon in the top right of your own posts within 6 minutes of posting to edit your posts.0 -
So we could solve world poverty just by giving the poor countries printing presses?Barnesian said:
I'm with you on this. The debt is with the BoE who printed the money. Some say the debt will have to be repaid. Oh no it doesn't. It doesn't require extra taxes, austerity or a debt to our children or grandchildren. It simply will not be repaid. It never has been. It just grows. It's unimportant. We should stop measuring it.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
We should manage growth and inflation instead.0 -
Yes, that is why we are attempting to treat as many as possible, without exposing them to additional risk from the virus.Beibheirli_C said:
The problem is that if you ignore the patients then soon you start clocking up dead bodies from non-Covid issues, and it looks like that is happening.Foxy said:
He doesn't seem to understand that hospitals can not function normally in a pandemic, nor can they effectively treat patients by ignoring the virus.rottenborough said:
https://twitter.com/ProfKarolSikora/status/1318169748933398529Foxy said:
So what is Sikora suggesting? No social distancing in hospitals,? No PPE or deep cleaning? Ceasing to admit covid patients to ICU so the space can be used for elective surgery?rottenborough said:0 -
Cloudflare is a company providing infrastructure services and DDOS capabilities for many web services. One of their selling points (used to beBarnesian said:
What's this?
) enhanced uptime through page caching... 0 -
No as that leads to inflationNo_Offence_Alan said:
So we could solve world poverty just by giving the poor countries printing presses?Barnesian said:
I'm with you on this. The debt is with the BoE who printed the money. Some say the debt will have to be repaid. Oh no it doesn't. It doesn't require extra taxes, austerity or a debt to our children or grandchildren. It simply will not be repaid. It never has been. It just grows. It's unimportant. We should stop measuring it.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
We should manage growth and inflation instead.0 -
Thanks for the pointer, Mr Pointer!Benpointer said:
You know there's a post edit facility right?Roy_G_Biv said:
Sorry, I meant print.Roy_G_Biv said:
The risks of that are really quite low right now. Consumer demand is in the toilet, unemployment is going up. The main pro-inflationary risk is increased costs of imports, which is why the government shouldn't be messing about with Brexit right now. Just sign up to something to keep trade stable, and if you really need to, revisit it in a couple of years when the coronavirus situation has settled into something more stable. But for now, yeah, borrow.Malmesbury said:
That is something that has been said in many economies - just before they achieved... interesting levels of inflation.Roy_G_Biv said:
That's not really a downside at the moment, given it's quite low at the moment. Some would argue it should be higher than it is.rottenborough said:
Inflation.Benpointer said:
Can someone explain to me the downside of just printing (creating) the money? I am sure there must be one but I'm struggling to see it.algarkirk said:I have every possible sympathy with Cyclefree's view here. However when it comes to spending money you haven't got and which you are borrowing for your grandchildren and their descendants to pay back it seems to me never enough to say there are no limits to what should be spent. Cyclefree would be a great deal more convincing if at least some actual figures were used; such as what is the upper limit on how much we should borrow; in what areas should we spend less or not at all. How much debt is too much? 3 trillion? 4 trillion?
3 trillion is £100,000 per income tax payer. We are currently at over 2 trillion and there appears no plan to stop. - nor has there been really since 2008.
No-one seems to be interested in the financial meaning of all this. And, like Marcus Rashford, you can become a decorated saint merely by campaigning to borrow even more off your great grandchildren to further impoverish them to pay for free something else right now.
Click on the little 'settings' icon in the top right of your own posts within 6 minutes of posting to edit your posts. 0 -
Yes of course the BBC funding model is the problem, this is a side effect of that.Roy_G_Biv said:
Isn't the problem there the funding structure of the BBC? I mean, it's not Gary Linker's fault that you can't watch ITV without paying the BBC. He could shut up, wear a mask, repudiate all his beliefs, and/or resign and that still won't change a thing about the license fee.Philip_Thompson said:
Being paid millions by the BBC should though.alex_ said:
I don't see why she should shut up about it if she feels strongly on it. Any more than any non-"celebrity" should have to refrain from posting their opinions on twitter or anywhere. People shouldn't hang on a celebrity's every word just because they are a celebrity. But being famous shouldn't disqualify their right to express their views.RochdalePioneers said:
I have that view for all celebs. I am interested in what they do that makes them famous. I am not interested in their views on the stuff that didn't make them famous. JK Rowling seems to be on a lot of people's shit list because she's transphobic.Roy_G_Biv said:
It's probably also an idea for people not to take too seriously what celebrities do. I've never understood the hatred Gary Lineker inspires in the far right. He's some TV guy with some opinions, some of which you might agree with, some of which you might not. I'm not sure anyone who gets worked up over him is making their own lives, or the world, better.RochdalePioneers said:This one is pretty simple isn't it? Wear a sodding mask. Yes its bad when TV stars and Twitter mega people like Lineker. Really bad - don't encourage morons to not wear masks.
So if its really bad for TV tots not bollocks it up, how bad is it when the PM slaps an MP on the back on the way out of the Commons or ManCock not wearing a mask in his car?
Not at all bad. It doesn't matter as the government is above the law and can do what it wants.
OK, its not good that she's transphobic. But her views on trans people aren't relevant to anyone other than her. So she should shut up about it - and the people flapping about her views should also shut up.
JK Rowling gets her money from her own private efforts, from people who choose to get her products or read her books or watch her films, not from licence fee payers who don't have a choice by law to pay even if they want other live TV channels or programs not his.
FWIW I stopped paying my licence fee years and years ago, because I don't agree with the way it's funded. But even if I did pay, I don't feel like I would have a claim on what Lineker is allowed to say and do.
People who dislike Rowling can boycott her and not pay for her products. People who dislike Lineker can't, they're obliged by law to pay him via the licence fee.
We shouldn't have a state broadcaster people have to pay towards by law but if there is one impartiality in politics should rule and that should extend to everyone. If a state broadcaster sports presenter paid millions by a licence fee poll tax wants to take up political causes good luck to him, he should quit the state broadcaster and do so as a private citizen not as someone paid by the licence fee.
If his show was subscription or paid by commercials this objection wouldn't apply.0
