Truss once again topping the CONHome ratings – politicalbetting.com

On topic.

Poor Michael Green. What’s he done to offend the party faithful?

ping said:

On topic.

Poor Michael Green. What’s he done to offend the party faithful?

All that nationalisation he's undertaking and the cancellation of HS2 in the North.

It is pissing off lots of people.

TheScreamingEagles said:

ping said:

On topic.

Poor Michael Green. What’s he done to offend the party faithful?

All that nationalisation he's undertaking and the cancellation of HS2 in the North.

It is pissing off lots of people.

Yes, the cancelling of HS2 in the north runs contrary to the so called levelling up agenda.

Fk me

Natural gas futures now up at 299.61p/therm for Dec delivery.

Average energy bills from April looking to be ~£2k.

Hope PB’ers have long fixes

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

Hague was absolutely crap, he had not a clue.

He was probably the most intelligent Tory leader since WW2 though, which just goes to show being very intelligent does not necessarily mean you will win general elections

As we're on drug policy. ..

The mushroom season is now in full swing for all you budding mycologists!

The little brown sods are springing up valley and down dale. However unknowingly grab a handful of the wrong ones and you're now possessing a class A substance. Of course it is a substance with some of the lowest known risks both to society and the individual but we are where we are thanks to the 2005 act.

Now speaking for myself, even the innocent amateur mycologist stumbling around the Dales may feel a little shifty with a bag of unknown specimens. As there's actually quite a few varieties of LBMs with interesting properties and some of which we are unsure of either way.

ping said:

On topic.

Poor Michael Green. What’s he done to offend the party faithful?

Stopped people jetting off to Torremolinos/Nice/Bhutan?

Note how low the PM’s rating is, even amongst his own supporters.

HYUFD said:

malcolmg said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

Hague was absolutely crap, he had not a clue.

He was probably the most intelligent Tory leader since WW2 though, which just goes to show being very intelligent does not necessarily mean you will win general elections

He got the job when his ability had ran ahead of his maturity. Big mistake.

Wes Streeting, look and learn.

dixiedean said:

MightyAlex said:

As we're on drug policy. ..

The mushroom season is now in full swing for all you budding mycologists!

The little brown sods are springing up valley and down dale. However unknowingly grab a handful of the wrong ones and you're now possessing a class A substance. Of course it is a substance with some of the lowest known risks both to society and the individual but we are where we are thanks to the 2005 act.

Now speaking for myself, even the innocent amateur mycologist stumbling around the Dales may feel a little shifty with a bag of unknown specimens. As there's actually quite a few varieties of LBMs with interesting properties and some of which we are unsure of either way.

How a naturally occurring life form in its indigenous setting can be deemed "illlegal" boggles my mind.

Nature is mankind's b*tch.

Nigel_Foremain said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

Was it his accent? I quite liked his accent which was reasonably well spoken with a slight Yorkshire hint, not too dissimilar to Harald Wilson. Angela Rayner on the other hand sounds terrible to most southern ears I would guess.

And to many northern ears I would also guess.

darkage said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

darkage said:

Got to laugh at Patel announcing more 'increased sentences'. This seems to be a recurring trick to fool the public: they change the law to increase the theoretical maximum sentence, normally to life imprisonment. But little actually changes in the courts, as the sentencing guidelines remain largely unchanged. Its similar to what labour did, longer jail sentences were introduced at the same time as automatic release half way through, so no effective change.

My first thought when they announced money to allow more electronic tags this morning was that money would be way better spent getting people through court rather than afterwards.

Despite moaning about the courts yesterday, I don't agree with that one.

The issue at the minute is the revolving door so people get [eventually] through the courts and end up back on the streets and back ultimately before the courts again.

If people could go through the courts once and be genuinely rehabilitated and not end up back before the courts again . . . that'd be worth more than almost any other investment.

Does anyone actually get rehabilitated by going to prison? There is a language of rehabilitation, but in the eyes of the public prison is there for punishment.

Taking the example of Anne Sacoolas, there is a great desire to see her extradited, tried, and sent to jail for a long time. But what purpose would that truly serve? This is all about a public thirst for punishment.

I'm not sure there is a great desire to see her serve a long sentence? I think she should be extradited and stand trial and if guilty given the appropriate sentence. For an accident, where she behaved well after the event (did not leave the scene etc) I doubt it would be a lengthy sentence. I'd argue (as a non expert) that she was driving without due care and attention, but presumably would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving?

turbotubbs said:

darkage said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

darkage said:

Got to laugh at Patel announcing more 'increased sentences'. This seems to be a recurring trick to fool the public: they change the law to increase the theoretical maximum sentence, normally to life imprisonment. But little actually changes in the courts, as the sentencing guidelines remain largely unchanged. Its similar to what labour did, longer jail sentences were introduced at the same time as automatic release half way through, so no effective change.

My first thought when they announced money to allow more electronic tags this morning was that money would be way better spent getting people through court rather than afterwards.

Despite moaning about the courts yesterday, I don't agree with that one.

The issue at the minute is the revolving door so people get [eventually] through the courts and end up back on the streets and back ultimately before the courts again.

If people could go through the courts once and be genuinely rehabilitated and not end up back before the courts again . . . that'd be worth more than almost any other investment.

Does anyone actually get rehabilitated by going to prison? There is a language of rehabilitation, but in the eyes of the public prison is there for punishment.

Taking the example of Anne Sacoolas, there is a great desire to see her extradited, tried, and sent to jail for a long time. But what purpose would that truly serve? This is all about a public thirst for punishment.

I'm not sure there is a great desire to see her serve a long sentence? I think she should be extradited and stand trial and if guilty given the appropriate sentence. For an accident, where she behaved well after the event (did not leave the scene etc) I doubt it would be a lengthy sentence. I'd argue (as a non expert) that she was driving without due care and attention, but presumably would be charged with causing death by dangerous driving?

A lot of the "minor" crime such as burglary is committed by a very small number of people working very, very hard.

I recall a case where they sent a burglar to prison and burglaries went down 25% over big chuck of Wiltshire while he was away. When he got out, they went back up. He was committing a dozen burglaries a day - waiting for the commuters to head off, then doing a bunch of houses, one after the other.

So, if you warehouse a select group of criminals, then you can make a big difference in crime.

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

Anabobazina said:

MightyAlex said:

As we're on drug policy. ..

The mushroom season is now in full swing for all you budding mycologists!

The little brown sods are springing up valley and down dale. However unknowingly grab a handful of the wrong ones and you're now possessing a class A substance. Of course it is a substance with some of the lowest known risks both to society and the individual but of course we are where we are thanks to the 2005 act.

Now speaking for myself, even the innocent amateur mycologist stumbling around the Dales may feel a little shifty with a bag of unknown specimens. As there's actually quite a few varieties of LBMs with interesting properties and some of which we are unsure of either way.

Has anyone ever been arrested/charged for foraging a fungus which grows naturally and widely across the UK? I'm sure they have been, but the entire concept seems completely weird, from a legal standpoint.

FWIW it's illegal to forage any mushrooms at all in Epping Forest, not a million miles away from me in London – the forest was being harvested by foragers working for London restaurants so the authorities clamped down with a £5,000 maximum fine.

Not so long since one could get a free ticket to Australia for being found in possession of a pheasant or rabbit found in your own garden.

Admittedly introduced species. But the same was true of various native species.

I see the Romanian government has fallen.

Stuartinromford said:

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Adam Boulton of Sky has just got Insulate Britain to admit their plans would cost between half and one trillion pounds over 10 years

Without a concrete commitment to half a trillion plus spent on their pet project they'll continue to blockade roads.

People need to be imprisoned if they continue with this. Let them demonstrate from prison.

You really need to control this libertarian streak of yours, Philip.

It is a new political philosophy: Thompsonian Libertarianism. Non-intervention in things Philip agrees with. High handed authoritarianism for people he doesn't like!

Got to agree with him regarding these holier-than-thou twats blocking the roads though. Lock up up!!

Trouble is that freedom for me, authoritarianism for thee has been a potent vote winner in all sorts of times and all sorts of places. And not just on the right.

The only problem is that it doesn't work as a programme for a happy nation, because there's no agreement on who the mes and thees are.

I wat freedom
You want excess liberty
He has been given 30 days

Now, about those silly rules stopping me buying the 125 kilos of U235 I want for my criticality experiments in my shed.

"Britain is Booming. Don't let Labour blow it."

Photos of that vintage always remind me of this one

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

Malmesbury said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Adam Boulton of Sky has just got Insulate Britain to admit their plans would cost between half and one trillion pounds over 10 years

Without a concrete commitment to half a trillion plus spent on their pet project they'll continue to blockade roads.

People need to be imprisoned if they continue with this. Let them demonstrate from prison.

You really need to control this libertarian streak of yours, Philip.

It is a new political philosophy: Thompsonian Libertarianism. Non-intervention in things Philip agrees with. High handed authoritarianism for people he doesn't like!

Got to agree with him regarding these holier-than-thou twats blocking the roads though. Lock up up!!

Trouble is that freedom for me, authoritarianism for thee has been a potent vote winner in all sorts of times and all sorts of places. And not just on the right.

The only problem is that it doesn't work as a programme for a happy nation, because there's no agreement on who the mes and thees are.

I wat freedom
You want excess liberty
He has been given 30 days

Now, about those silly rules stopping me buying the 125 kilos of U235 I want for my criticality experiments in my shed.

Why would you want a load of scrap steel from an old German submarine?

Another reason Shapps is unpopular, getting rid of ICE vehicles from 2030.

Quite a few people don't realise that applies to NEW vehicles, not existing ones.

TheScreamingEagles said:

Another reason Shapps is unpopular, getting rid of ICE vehicles from 2030.

Quite a few people don't realise that applies to NEW vehicles, not existing ones.

Any polling on that? I wonder how many people are aware of the ban at all, might not be on too many people's radar at this point.

Of course, they'll start to notice much sooner than 2030 as manufacturers change their behaviour.

Sandpit said:

darkage said:

Philip_Thompson said:

eek said:

darkage said:

Got to laugh at Patel announcing more 'increased sentences'. This seems to be a recurring trick to fool the public: they change the law to increase the theoretical maximum sentence, normally to life imprisonment. But little actually changes in the courts, as the sentencing guidelines remain largely unchanged. Its similar to what labour did, longer jail sentences were introduced at the same time as automatic release half way through, so no effective change.

My first thought when they announced money to allow more electronic tags this morning was that money would be way better spent getting people through court rather than afterwards.

Despite moaning about the courts yesterday, I don't agree with that one.

The issue at the minute is the revolving door so people get [eventually] through the courts and end up back on the streets and back ultimately before the courts again.

If people could go through the courts once and be genuinely rehabilitated and not end up back before the courts again . . . that'd be worth more than almost any other investment.

Does anyone actually get rehabilitated by going to prison? There is a language of rehabilitation, but in the eyes of the public prison is there for punishment.

Taking the example of Anne Sacoolas, there is a great desire to see her extradited, tried, and sent to jail for a long time. But what purpose would that truly serve? This is all about a public thirst for punishment.

The justice system needs to be seen to operate fairly. That requires both a punishment and rehabilitation aspect to any given sentence.

In the case you mention, the lady killed someone, and was to be prosecuted for manslaughter. Society agrees that people who kill people, even if that outcome was not their intention, deserve to lose their liberty for a period of time as punishment. Causing death by dangerous driving is usually 10 years or thereabouts, less in practice with good behaviour.

Sending someone to jail for 10 years for something like this is utterly idiotic. It may be what the public want, but they are idiots. It is vengeance over justice. The same people continuously partake in dangerous and careless driving on the roads, routinely fail to observe speed limits, and all this results in continuous near misses; and this is observable on every school run. When the government pander to this type of nonsense, it really is the undoing of civilised society.

kinabalu said:

Philip_Thompson said:

kinabalu said:

Northern_Al said:

kinabalu said:

How come the Magnificent Muscly Man is so low in these ratings? Is he not loved by his own?

Yes, I thought the same. We're always told, with some justification, that Boris's lovable rogue persona tickles the fancy of vast swathes of the country. And yet the most ardent Tories in this poll seem not to be as enamoured as the voters. I can only guess that the Tories polled are skewed to the fiscally dry, traditional values branch of the party.

They must have no sense of humour. I mean, how can anybody resist this sort of thing? -

https://twitter.com/BorisJohnson/status/1445104926431006722?t=1p6lV3D-iT_E417kB2JYwg&s=19

So fortunate we are in these challenging times to have this man at the helm.

He spends a few seconds making a terrible build back batter pun . . . and leftwingers ensure its viewed millions of times sharing his build back better message.

How productive were those few seconds? No wonder he's Prime Minister.

I know exactly why he's Prime Minister. It's for the same reason Benny Hill got to number one with "Ernie".

Chasing a half-naked Barbara Windsor around the garden, slightly speeded up, to the accompaniment of Yakety Sax?

algarkirk said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

algarkirk said:

HYUFD said:

Sandpit said:

HYUFD said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Don't agree with Patel talking about tougher sentences for drugs whatsoever.

Time to legalise them instead.

Cannabis at most, certainly not hard drugs like heroin

Definitely legalise heroin. It’s not difficult to be a functional heroin addict, with a good quality product and treatment options - yet it’s the most likely drug to be cut with all sorts of crap by the black market, and turns lives upside-down because of the dependency on the dealers.

If you legalise anything more people will do it and try it. That means more people will try harder drugs like heroin and cocaine just because they can.

You can still keep the treatment options for those who are heroin addicts now

Both legalisation and criminalisation are terrible policies, but one is likely to be worse than the other. There is no good policy available in a free society. I think decriminalisation would be worth a try.

A third variant, never yet tried, is to make possession and use the really big offence, not dealing. There will always be career criminals to run the big operations, and there will always be replacements available. So arguably the sane option is to attack demand. Most new users are idiots rather than career criminals. How much demand would there be if possession and use alone carried a very long prison sentence?

I would actually focus treatment on users and toughen sentences for dealers and suppliers of hard drugs ie tackle the problem at source

The sentences for the big dealers are already extraordinarily long. It appears to make no difference. This is because there is always a supply of career criminals, though small in number (huge in impact of course). But how many new users would start if the threat was a very long sentence just for possession of individual quantities?

Society is entitled to make these sorts of judgements as to how serious actions are, and to change its mind.

I don't really want to live in a society where a young person gets a custodial sentence for trying a puff on a spliff thanks.

Quite. Nor do I. It's one of the various options, none of which we want to live with because all have intolerable aspects. That's why it is hard.

But if you actually want to minimise something you will have more success aiming at a large group of people who are not career criminals than by only aiming at the career criminals.

Societies can differ radically. In the UK possessing a firearm will often mean along time in prison. In much of the US it will get you street cred among Republicans.

With drugs, if there isn't demand there won't be supply. So attack demand.
Similar with theft. if there are no handlers of stolen goods there won't be much theft. Which may be why handling sentences are high.

Seems to me there's quite a few more consumers than dealers or producers. If you are going down this road surely the rate determining step is the flow of drugs across the borders? Unless of course were going for full employment via police numbers.

If I’ve got my maths right, wholesale gas is currently ~10p/kwh

algarkirk said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Taz said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Adam Boulton of Sky has just got Insulate Britain to admit their plans would cost between half and one trillion pounds over 10 years

Without a concrete commitment to half a trillion plus spent on their pet project they'll continue to blockade roads.

People need to be imprisoned if they continue with this. Let them demonstrate from prison.

Their demand is every house in UK is fully insulated? Putting aside the cost and the practicalities of delivering, how much CO2 would this actually save? It's a generally laudable goal but is it a screaming must all be done in next year emergency priority?

A better target might be get on a build more nuclear so we can switch from gas faster?

A better target might have been to get on and build more wind turbines (and insulate more houses) when, less than a decade ago, people like Boris Johnson were claiming that they couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding and people like Anne-Marie Trevelyan were denying the existence of climate change altogether. If we had a government made up of people who accepted reality, we wouldn't need XR!

We don’t need them. We have a govt who accepts this. Wind turbines have been going up offshore for quite a while now and New ones in the pipeline. Complaining about what people used to think when the science wasn’t as settled as it is now is futile.

There is no battle, all mainstream parties accept this. The Tories do. Trevelyan does.

Who, in the Current govt on the climate issue, does not Accept the need to take action ?

I got my house insulated, paid by the govt, a while ago. There are schemes and the govt is taking action.

The science was well settled a decade ago. Indeed, it's been known since the 1980s that CO2 emissions were an urgent problem. The reason we're in a mess now is not because of XR, Greenpeace and Co; it's because of the refusal of governments, particularly right-wing governments, to act on the advice of the scientists.

I am very doubtful whether this is a left/right wing government issue. It is a politics issue. The most totalitarian governments, traditionally seen as left (like China - though who knows what left or right would mean) seem to struggle immensely with the realities of the issue. The most social democrat of regimes produce directly and indirectly oceans of CO2 (Canada, Norway etc).

The more interesting question is this: When will climate realists and climate idealists agree that for all sorts of reasons the CO2 amount in the air is going to reach levels science regards as unacceptable, and this is already baked in. CO2 is not only continuing going into the air, the amount going in is increasing yearly. We are nowhere near the required trajectory. Nor shall we be.

This is so obviously so that it just amazes me that there is so much focus on cutting carbon emissions and so little on carbon dioxide extraction.

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

On the contrary, legal drugs come with ingredients labels and usage instructions.

The sort of drugs you buy on street corners and in nightclubs, not so much.

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

On the contrary, legal drugs come with ingredients labels and usage instructions.

The sort of drugs you buy on street corners and in nightclubs, not so much.

You're completely missing the point. Perhaps legalising and correctly labelling hard drugs would be a good idea. The government isn't going to do it.

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

If there had been genuinely no inflation since 2000 then your property that you bought in 2000 would now be worth the same as you bought it in 2000 for.

Based on the bank of England's inflation calculator a property bought in 2000 for £100,000 would now be worth £172,134.56

Colour me sceptical that lines up with what's really happened. Is it?

We've not had inflation in recent years, so long as you exclude the costs that have been going up as being part of the inflation basket.

Malmesbury said:

Nigelb said:

I see the Romanian government has fallen.

Were they.... Romainers?

Lettuce not descend to those levels.

Stuartinromford said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

The last time a government really had to deal with inflation was John Major's time as Chancellor and PM. And Major's fate will be seared into BoJo's mind.

The temptation for any politician- let alone a Power Of Optimism one like Bozza- to hope it will just go away must be huge.

Maybe he'll get away with it.

That was the last government to deal with inflation yes.

We've had inflation since then, it simply hasn't been dealt with, by defining it as "not inflation" by excluding it from the basket of goods measured.

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

Some of arguments in favour of legalising drugs are purity and strength issues.

1) Many deaths have been caused by horribly toxic impurities used to dilute drugs for illegal sale
2) Many deaths have been caused by varying strength of illegal drugs. The classic is for a new dealer to setup and start selling 80% heroin to his customers who have been buying 20%
3) Some of the worst illegal drugs are attempts to get round restrictions in the illegal drug market.

Legalised drugs, with defined strength, ingredients etc could fix all 3

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

If there had been genuinely no inflation since 2000 then your property that you bought in 2000 would now be worth the same as you bought it in 2000 for.

Based on the bank of England's inflation calculator a property bought in 2000 for £100,000 would now be worth £172,134.56

Colour me sceptical that lines up with what's really happened. Is it?

We've not had inflation in recent years, so long as you exclude the costs that have been going up as being part of the inflation basket.

This was a property I bought in London in 2000, sold in 2007, the profit alone allowed me to buy a mansion oop North.

I can imagine that.

I'd be curious without wanting to pry too much if you were to check something like Zoopla and see what percentage change there has been in that property between 2000 and to-date.

Has there really been no inflation?

Housing costs are the largest element of a household's budget nowadays, larger even than food, and yet we define it as not part of the basket of goods and therefore magically there's no inflation.

Pure ostrich-in-sand to say there's no inflation.

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

On the contrary, legal drugs come with ingredients labels and usage instructions.

The sort of drugs you buy on street corners and in nightclubs, not so much.

You're completely missing the point. Perhaps legalising and correctly labelling hard drugs would be a good idea. The government isn't going to do it.

Your comparison was about someone who died, because what they consumed wasn’t sufficiently well labelled.

That’s an argument for selling drugs in pharmacies, rather than on street corners.

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

Some of arguments in favour of legalising drugs are purity and strength issues.

1) Many deaths have been caused by horribly toxic impurities used to dilute drugs for illegal sale
2) Many deaths have been caused by varying strength of illegal drugs. The classic is for a new dealer to setup and start selling 80% heroin to his customers who have been buying 20%
3) Some of the worst illegal drugs are attempts to get round restrictions in the illegal drug market.

Legalised drugs, with defined strength, ingredients etc could fix all 3

Presumably, we'd need much tougher sentencing for POSSESSION of illegal drugs? Logically, if you can buy it legally, there should be no excuse for possessing it illegally. Or would we be fine with unlicensed drug dealing?

If drugs are legalised then the unlicensed trade becomes an issue for agencies related to HMRC like the unlicensed trade in alcohol and tobacco. And those guys can be more ruthless in getting their results.

tlg86 said:

Malmesbury said:

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

Some of arguments in favour of legalising drugs are purity and strength issues.

1) Many deaths have been caused by horribly toxic impurities used to dilute drugs for illegal sale
2) Many deaths have been caused by varying strength of illegal drugs. The classic is for a new dealer to setup and start selling 80% heroin to his customers who have been buying 20%
3) Some of the worst illegal drugs are attempts to get round restrictions in the illegal drug market.

Legalised drugs, with defined strength, ingredients etc could fix all 3

Presumably, we'd need much tougher sentencing for POSSESSION of illegal drugs? Logically, if you can buy it legally, there should be no excuse for possessing it illegally. Or would we be fine with unlicensed drug dealing?

Probably regulate it via the existing pharmacy licensing and controls setups.

Try opening your own pharmacy. Even to sell legal drugs. Without all the permits.

The main effect would be as with legal alcohol - nearly no-one bothers with the illegal stuff. Yes, there is a certain amount of counterfeiting and illegal distilling, but the amount is tiny.

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

If there had been genuinely no inflation since 2000 then your property that you bought in 2000 would now be worth the same as you bought it in 2000 for.

Based on the bank of England's inflation calculator a property bought in 2000 for £100,000 would now be worth £172,134.56

Colour me sceptical that lines up with what's really happened. Is it?

We've not had inflation in recent years, so long as you exclude the costs that have been going up as being part of the inflation basket.

This was a property I bought in London in 2000, sold in 2007, the profit alone allowed me to buy a mansion oop North.

I can imagine that.

I'd be curious without wanting to pry too much if you were to check something like Zoopla and see what percentage change there has been in that property between 2000 and to-date.

Has there really been no inflation?

Housing costs are the largest element of a household's budget nowadays, larger even than food, and yet we define it as not part of the basket of goods and therefore magically there's no inflation.

Pure ostrich-in-sand to say there's no inflation.

Eh? CPI does now (a recent change, admittedly). Or so I read this:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/methodologies/consumerpriceinflationincludesall3indicescpihcpiandrpiqmi

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

You can also add picking Home over Butler in 1963.

On the Labour side similarly picking Foot over Healey in 1980, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010 and Corbyn over Burnham in 2015

I think Miliband vs Miliband is a less extreme example, and I'm not only saying that because I voted for Ed!

Had David won Cameron would likely not have got a majority in 2015, the Tory-LD coalition would probably have continued, there would have been no EU referendum in 2016 and no Brexit.

New PM Osborne would be settling down to No 10 having narrowly beaten Corbyn in 2020 despite UKIP getting 20% of the vote (or else David Miliband could have stayed Labour leader having only narrowly lost and beaten Osborne and now be in No 10).

Boris meanwhile would be finishing his biography of Shakespeare not running the country.

Ed beating David had huge consequences

Doesn't everything have huge consequences though? I think so. Apologies for a quick diversion but I got to pondering this the other week when I had a hole in one at golf. It happened at 11.37 am on Wednesday 22nd Sept. The 12th hole, 162 yards, 7 iron, sweet spot, high with a touch of fade, landed on, rolled and ... IN.

My first and I'm sure last. I'm only an average player, about an 18, don't play that much, so you don't expect it to ever happen, it's massively unlikely. Such a buzz it was. Made me feel special, picked out by fate, as if I'd won the lottery or something. But as I continued to think about it, my thoughts took a bleaker turn. Rather than winning lotteries I started to think about other unlikely "special" things, such as plane crashes and bizarre diseases. If I could have a hole in one, if I was the sort who father fate was taking an interest in, could I also be in line for one of these?

Had to stop that train of thought and the way I did so was by considering it from another angle. My shot went into the hole only because everything at the time and prior to it was just so. A fraction of a millimetre different on the clubface, a smidgen more or less force, a different golfball, the tiniest scintilla of a change in the wind or atmospheric pressure, not wearing a glove, wearing a different sweater or trousers, wearing y fronts instead of boxers, a traffic jam on the drive to the club, an apple instead of a banana for breakfast, then the night before etc, keep going back and back and further back, all the way to the womb and even before that - point being, any change at all would have meant no hole in one. My life led inexorably to the moment and the moment was created by my life. More than this, it was created by the whole of history since I live not in isolation but in deep nexus with all else.

So, that cheered me up no end.

HYUFD said:

tlg86 said:

Sandpit said:

tlg86 said:

How do those advocating legalising drugs feel about this...

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-58756597

The rules - known as "Natasha's Law" - require full ingredient and allergen labelling on all food made on premises and pre-packed for direct sale.

The inquest heard the baguette contained sesame - which Natasha was allergic to - baked into the dough, but the ingredient was not listed on the packaging.

Pret did not label "artisan" baguettes as containing sesame seeds despite six allergic reaction cases in the year before Natasha died, the inquest heard.

The regulations Natasha's law, all food retailers will be required to display full ingredient and allergen labelling on every food item made on the premises and pre-packed for direct sale - including sandwiches, cakes and salads.

Previously, non pre-packaged fresh food made on the premises did not need to be individually labelled with allergen or ingredient information.

Personally it doesn't bother me, and it certainly seems poor that a big company like Pret didn't go further than required when it came to labelling.

However, if I were hugely allergic to something, it would take a lot for me to eat something prepared by someone else.

Anyway, the sister-in-law of a friend of mine used to do catering for parties as a side job and used make Christmas cakes and mince pies etc. in December. She isn't doing it any more because the regulations are just not worth the hassle.

This is why I think all the talk of legalising drugs is pure fantasy. There is too much pressure on the state to protect people. Legalising hard drugs does not do that, even if in aggregate we may get better outcomes (I'm sceptical, but still).

On the contrary, legal drugs come with ingredients labels and usage instructions.

The sort of drugs you buy on street corners and in nightclubs, not so much.

You're completely missing the point. Perhaps legalising and correctly labelling hard drugs would be a good idea. The government isn't going to do it.

It is not happening anyway. 76% of voters think the sale and possession of hard drugs like heroin and cocaine should remain a criminal offence, only 7% support legalisation of them.

Only 40% of voters do support continued criminalisation of soft drugs like cannabis though, though 57% of Conservative voters think the sale and possession of cannabis should remain illegal

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/63aaoe9j9t/InternalResults_180524_Drugs_w.pdf

Give it time. Attitudes will change.

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

You can also add picking Home over Butler in 1963.

On the Labour side similarly picking Foot over Healey in 1980, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010 and Corbyn over Burnham in 2015

I think Miliband vs Miliband is a less extreme example, and I'm not only saying that because I voted for Ed!

Had David won Cameron would likely not have got a majority in 2015, the Tory-LD coalition would probably have continued, there would have been no EU referendum in 2016 and no Brexit.

New PM Osborne would be settling down to No 10 having narrowly beaten Corbyn in 2020 despite UKIP getting 20% of the vote (or else David Miliband could have stayed Labour leader having only narrowly lost and beaten Osborne and now be in No 10).

Boris meanwhile would be finishing his biography of Shakespeare not running the country.

Ed beating David had huge consequences

Doesn't everything have huge consequences though? I think so. Apologies for a quick diversion but I got to pondering this the other week when I had a hole in one at golf. It happened at 11.37 am on Wednesday 22nd Sept. The 12th hole, 162 yards, 7 iron, sweet spot, high with a touch of fade, landed on, rolled and ... IN.

My first and I'm sure last. I'm only an average player, about an 18, don't play that much, so you don't expect it to ever happen, it's massively unlikely. Such a buzz it was. Made me feel special, picked out by fate, as if I'd won the lottery or something. But as I continued to think about it, my thoughts took a bleaker turn. Rather than winning lotteries I started to think about other unlikely "special" things, such as plane crashes and bizarre diseases. If I could have a hole in one, if I was the sort who father fate was taking an interest in, could I also be in line for one of these?

Had to stop that train of thought and the way I did so was by considering it from another angle. My shot went into the hole only because everything at the time and prior to it was just so. A fraction of a millimetre different on the clubface, a smidgen more or less force, a different golfball, the tiniest scintilla of a change in the wind or atmospheric pressure, not wearing a glove, wearing a different sweater or trousers, wearing y fronts instead of boxers, a traffic jam on the drive to the club, an apple instead of a banana for breakfast, then the night before etc, keep going back and back and further back, all the way to the womb and even before that - point being, any change at all would have meant no hole in one. My life led inexorably to the moment and the moment was created by my life. More than this, it was created by the whole of history since I live not in isolation but in deep nexus with all else.

So, that cheered me up no end.

You just want congratulations for the hole-in-one, don’t you?

Hope you got your name on the board in the clubhouse, and hope the bar bill didn’t do too much damage to your credit card!

kinabalu said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

HYUFD said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

HYUFD said:

Stuartinromford said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

O/T: some hope for Conservatives in that Johnson only scores just above Priti Patel, but the real shocker is the two most swivelly of swivelly-eyed nutjobs, Frost and Rees-Mogg right up at the top. The modern Conservative Party clearly still has more extremists in it than Labour under Corbyn if so many want to endorse these two!

Neither Frost or JRM are as bad as Jezza.

But.

The people at the top of the list are the ones who make the Conservatives feel good about themselves, who tell the activists what they want to hear. In that sense, they are the mirror image of Corbyn.

In some ways, fair enough. But at some point, all parties need someone to remind them that not everyone thinks like them, or they can't have what they want. To give him his due, BoJo does that with greenery.

But who in the professional wing of the Conservative Party is left who is prepared to stand up to the activists?

Look, the Tories have been in power for 11 years now.

After 10 years in power all parties get a bit bored and less fresh and full of ideas. The activists too start to want a leader who is ideologically purer rather than to just stay in power for the sake of it.

Labour however has been out of power for over a decade, so it is they whose leadership needs to stand up to activists more than the Tories

Labour are out of power precisely because of your comments

However, the conservative party's desire for power is much more pragmatic

Was it so pragmatic when it picked Hague over Clarke after the 1997 defeat following 18 years in power and then followed that by picking IDS over Clarke and Portillo?

Hague wasn't such an unreasonable choice if you ask me, I think he just got the job too young and was unfairly discriminated against by the electorate on the basis of his northern accent. But picking IDS was lunacy.

You can also add picking Home over Butler in 1963.

On the Labour side similarly picking Foot over Healey in 1980, Ed Miliband over David Miliband in 2010 and Corbyn over Burnham in 2015

I think Miliband vs Miliband is a less extreme example, and I'm not only saying that because I voted for Ed!

Had David won Cameron would likely not have got a majority in 2015, the Tory-LD coalition would probably have continued, there would have been no EU referendum in 2016 and no Brexit.

New PM Osborne would be settling down to No 10 having narrowly beaten Corbyn in 2020 despite UKIP getting 20% of the vote (or else David Miliband could have stayed Labour leader having only narrowly lost and beaten Osborne and now be in No 10).

Boris meanwhile would be finishing his biography of Shakespeare not running the country.

Ed beating David had huge consequences

Doesn't everything have huge consequences though? I think so. Apologies for a quick diversion but I got to pondering this the other week when I had a hole in one at golf. It happened at 11.37 am on Wednesday 22nd Sept. The 12th hole, 162 yards, 7 iron, sweet spot, high with a touch of fade, landed on, rolled and ... IN.

My first and I'm sure last. I'm only an average player, about an 18, don't play that much, so you don't expect it to ever happen, it's massively unlikely. Such a buzz it was. Made me feel special, picked out by fate, as if I'd won the lottery or something. But as I continued to think about it, my thoughts took a bleaker turn. Rather than winning lotteries I started to think about other unlikely "special" things, such as plane crashes and bizarre diseases. If I could have a hole in one, if I was the sort who father fate was taking an interest in, could I also be in line for one of these?

Had to stop that train of thought and the way I did so was by considering it from another angle. My shot went into the hole only because everything at the time and prior to it was just so. A fraction of a millimetre different on the clubface, a smidgen more or less force, a different golfball, the tiniest scintilla of a change in the wind or atmospheric pressure, not wearing a glove, wearing a different sweater or trousers, wearing y fronts instead of boxers, a traffic jam on the drive to the club, an apple instead of a banana for breakfast, then the night before etc, keep going back and back and further back, all the way to the womb and even before that - point being, any change at all would have meant no hole in one. My life led inexorably to the moment and the moment was created by my life. More than this, it was created by the whole of history since I live not in isolation but in deep nexus with all else.

So, that cheered me up no end.

Ah but were you just playing out a predetermined act in the play that is Kinabalu?

Carnyx said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

Philip_Thompson said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

dixiedean said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

I'm now officially worried about inflation.

PM strikingly dismissive about fears over inflation...

Concerns are "unfounded", he told @BethRigby

People have been "worried about inflation for a long time, it hasn't materialised" he told @bbclaurak

"We've seen inflationary pressures come & go", he told @Peston

https://twitter.com/LOS_Fisher/status/1445365796251832332

There is an entire generation of politicians who treat inflation like some bogeyman from the past. Like cholera or smallpox.

The only time I have ever seen my father ever worried about money/finances was Black Wednesday when interest rates went through the roof, and I've always known combating inflation is increasing interest rates.

It was the primary reason I was dubious about taking a mortgage in 2000 at the age of 21.

If there had been genuinely no inflation since 2000 then your property that you bought in 2000 would now be worth the same as you bought it in 2000 for.

Based on the bank of England's inflation calculator a property bought in 2000 for £100,000 would now be worth £172,134.56

Colour me sceptical that lines up with what's really happened. Is it?

We've not had inflation in recent years, so long as you exclude the costs that have been going up as being part of the inflation basket.

This was a property I bought in London in 2000, sold in 2007, the profit alone allowed me to buy a mansion oop North.

I can imagine that.

I'd be curious without wanting to pry too much if you were to check something like Zoopla and see what percentage change there has been in that property between 2000 and to-date.

Has there really been no inflation?

Housing costs are the largest element of a household's budget nowadays, larger even than food, and yet we define it as not part of the basket of goods and therefore magically there's no inflation.

Pure ostrich-in-sand to say there's no inflation.

Eh? CPI does now (a recent change, admittedly). Or so I read this:

https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/inflationandpriceindices/methodologies/consumerpriceinflationincludesall3indicescpihcpiandrpiqmi

It measures "owner occupiers housing costs". Which it weights at 16% of the basket.

Good luck finding somewhere to rent spending 16% of average takehome pay on rent. 😂

JosiasJessop said:

MattW said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

Taz said:

FeersumEnjineeya said:

rottenborough said:

Philip_Thompson said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

Adam Boulton of Sky has just got Insulate Britain to admit their plans would cost between half and one trillion pounds over 10 years

Without a concrete commitment to half a trillion plus spent on their pet project they'll continue to blockade roads.

People need to be imprisoned if they continue with this. Let them demonstrate from prison.

Their demand is every house in UK is fully insulated? Putting aside the cost and the practicalities of delivering, how much CO2 would this actually save? It's a generally laudable goal but is it a screaming must all be done in next year emergency priority?

A better target might be get on a build more nuclear so we can switch from gas faster?

A better target might have been to get on and build more wind turbines (and insulate more houses) when, less than a decade ago, people like Boris Johnson were claiming that they couldn't pull the skin off a rice pudding and people like Anne-Marie Trevelyan were denying the existence of climate change altogether. If we had a government made up of people who accepted reality, we wouldn't need XR!

We don’t need them. We have a govt who accepts this. Wind turbines have been going up offshore for quite a while now and New ones in the pipeline. Complaining about what people used to think when the science wasn’t as settled as it is now is futile.

There is no battle, all mainstream parties accept this. The Tories do. Trevelyan does.

Who, in the Current govt on the climate issue, does not Accept the need to take action ?

I got my house insulated, paid by the govt, a while ago. There are schemes and the govt is taking action.

The science was well settled a decade ago. Indeed, it's been known since the 1980s that CO2 emissions were an urgent problem. The reason we're in a mess now is not because of XR, Greenpeace and Co; it's bacause of the refusal of governments, particularly right-wing governments, to act on the advice of the scientists.

Not clear which "mess" you are referring to. The one caused by Putin pulling on the Gas Supply noose he has been given around Germany's neck?

And how has the expansion of wind energy not been on the advice of the scientists?

We have had 3 large rounds of offshore wind farm licensing, let in 2000, 2010, and (I think) 2019. We are now doing round 4.

Which seems to be 'following the science' very well.

If following the science is about insulation, that was settled a generation ago.

Newnight man Justin Rowlatt was followed doing his house up as an "Ethical Man" in 2006, and Energy Efficiency was a huge theme of "Homeworld '81" in Milton Keynes. The Money Programme even sponsored the build of an energy-efficiant house.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-56996505

Wow. I'm glad someone's mentioned the Milton Keynes thing. I was thinking about that the other day - I went with my parents as my dad was looking for ideas for the houses he was building. ISTR an ugly 'energy efficient' showhome there, and a more 'normal' one as well. I think we went back in 86 as well, when I got a SuperTed toy promoting energy efficiency.

It's a good place to go and have a re-wander round 40 years later :-).

https://www.houseplanninghelp.com/what-impact-did-the-homeworld-exhibition-of-1981-have/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=obYZqQjI8JA

Doing some quick maths

Average house price 1999 £75,995
Average house price 2021 £265,668

Inflation 1999-2021: 6.2% per annum.

I'm curious how our politics would have been different for the past few decades if people had been thinking of that 6.2% increase in prices per annum as "inflation".

NorthofStoke said:

Daily Mail seem to be gunning for Boris over last few days. Could be significant?

Somebody says this every few weeks. The Daily Mail has been gunning for Boris for years now.

Since its Editor was replaced with arch-Remainer Geordie Gregg who hates Boris.