At 20% both Trump and Biden are value in the WH2024 betting – politicalbetting.com

squareroot2 said:

We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??

TheScreamingEagles said:

Foxy said:

Great headline in this logistics trade journal. Has TSE been moonlighting?

https://theloadstar.com/its-all-going-tits-up-at-uk-box-ports-and-despite-what-boris-says-we-cant-fix-it/

It's funny you mention that.

In one of our economic briefings (written by the female of the species) she wrote this very topic with the observation that 'we all know the dangers of when you have a massive load that you need to empty and nowhere and no one to help you unload it.'

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I was thinking about writing a header comparing Sir Keir’s Labour’s performance in By Elections with that of previous Labour leaders - it fascinates me that he has overseen their worst ever vote share in Hartlepool, C&A and B&S, real voters not voting for him at the first chance they get after the awful Jezza, but it’s not really seen as a big deal by anyone else

Anyway, looking at wiki, I was surprised to see the cause of Jim Dobbin’s death - looks like he got extremely drunk at an official dinner in Poland, and choked on his food. I was very interested in the subsequent by election in Heywood & Middleton - backed UKIP at 14/1 I think, and they lost by 627 votes - but hadn’t noticed that

It was the same day as Douglas Carswell’s Clacton by election, and UKIP probably focussed too much on that one, which turned out to be an easy win, and didn’t take H&M seriously enough. The original price in Clacton was 4/6 UKIP which I couldn’t get a penny on, but was massive value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dobbin

It's all about context.

Labour polled 2% and 2.7% in the Newbury & Christchurch by elections in 1993, the latter where their vote fell by 9.4% didn't stop them winning a landslide in 1997.

Would your piece cover Airdrie and Shotts?

Morris_Dancer said:

My mother's got COVID. Seems like a cold in terms of severity. Much coughing. Did an at-home test yesterday, going for another a drive-through place later today.

Feels better today than yesterday, though, which is good.

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More OT medical news.

The Telegraph has found a GP practice that is temporarily closed because its public liability insurance has lapsed. The Telegraph is paywalled but here is the doctors' website:-

The Blandford Group Practice has had to make the difficult decision to temporarily postpone non-urgent routine appointments due to a lapse in public liability insurance.

Our team are working extremely hard to put measures in place to allow services to return to normal at the earliest opportunity, this includes the weekend vaccination clinics.

We would like to reassure patients that this is an insurance issue and not a clinical care issue.
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/

Of much more interest, would be exactly why their insurance ‘lapsed’. Either they’ve no money to pay the renewal, or there was a good reason for the quote being a lot higher than they might have expected - such as a claim or claims made against it. If it were simply an administrative error, it could be solved in hours and without needing to issue statements to the press.

I don't think that explains it. Cover is free for the practice, universal and doesn't need to be applied for:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/clinical-schemes/general-practice-indemnity/clinical-negligence-scheme-for-general-practice/

That was my immediate thought too. It tends to suggest to me that there is some particular reason why the insurers are not willing to cover those doctors anymore which really must be some sort of clinical issue, despite their statement.

It also sounds like it’s capacity - so may be one doctor and they can’t find a locum?

The website linked above shows ten doctors spread over four surgeries. However, the earnings declaration gives the average salary as only £53,000 which suggests an awful lot of part-timers, in fact 2 full-time and 16 part-time, so maybe there are scheduling issues if no-one fancies Friday afternoon at the wrong end of town, say.
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/our-staff
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/gp-earnings

ETA we talked the other day about the increasing number of doctors opting for part-time work, and gap years during training.

Northern_Al said:

Sandpit said:

Northern_Al said:

Sandpit said:

squareroot2 said:

We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??

More to the point, why was he using up the valuable resource of a lorry and instructor, at a time when there’s an urgent need for more driver training? Thankfully he just hit a light barrier, rather than anything more solid which might have taken the lorry out of service.

Yes, of course Boris has never taken up the time of valuable resources, such as in the NHS, through publicity stunts, has he?

I’ll happily critisise any and all politicians who are getting in the way of dealing with an emergency. Nothing worse than a disaster recovery team having to deal with ‘VIP’ idiots turning up to have their photos taken, using up significant amounts of senior human resource and often disturbing the work being done.

Fair enough. I'll look forward to seeing your trenchant criticism of Boris next time he dons his hi-viz jacket and turns up at a flood scene or something similar.

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I was thinking about writing a header comparing Sir Keir’s Labour’s performance in By Elections with that of previous Labour leaders - it fascinates me that he has overseen their worst ever vote share in Hartlepool, C&A and B&S, real voters not voting for him at the first chance they get after the awful Jezza, but it’s not really seen as a big deal by anyone else

Anyway, looking at wiki, I was surprised to see the cause of Jim Dobbin’s death - looks like he got extremely drunk at an official dinner in Poland, and choked on his food. I was very interested in the subsequent by election in Heywood & Middleton - backed UKIP at 14/1 I think, and they lost by 627 votes - but hadn’t noticed that

It was the same day as Douglas Carswell’s Clacton by election, and UKIP probably focussed too much on that one, which turned out to be an easy win, and didn’t take H&M seriously enough. The original price in Clacton was 4/6 UKIP which I couldn’t get a penny on, but was massive value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dobbin

It's all about context.

Labour polled 2% and 2.7% in the Newbury & Christchurch by elections in 1993, the latter where their vote fell by 9.4% didn't stop them winning a landslide in 1997.

Would your piece cover Airdrie and Shotts?

Fine if you think it’s irrelevant, I think it’s strange that, after the supposedly toxic leader has been removed, the new one repeatedly does worse and evades criticism for it.

Morris_Dancer said:

My mother's got COVID. Seems like a cold in terms of severity. Much coughing. Did an at-home test yesterday, going for another a drive-through place later today.

Feels better today than yesterday, though, which is good.

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

isam said:

I was thinking about writing a header comparing Sir Keir’s Labour’s performance in By Elections with that of previous Labour leaders - it fascinates me that he has overseen their worst ever vote share in Hartlepool, C&A and B&S, real voters not voting for him at the first chance they get after the awful Jezza, but it’s not really seen as a big deal by anyone else

Anyway, looking at wiki, I was surprised to see the cause of Jim Dobbin’s death - looks like he got extremely drunk at an official dinner in Poland, and choked on his food. I was very interested in the subsequent by election in Heywood & Middleton - backed UKIP at 14/1 I think, and they lost by 627 votes - but hadn’t noticed that

It was the same day as Douglas Carswell’s Clacton by election, and UKIP probably focussed too much on that one, which turned out to be an easy win, and didn’t take H&M seriously enough. The original price in Clacton was 4/6 UKIP which I couldn’t get a penny on, but was massive value

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Dobbin

It's all about context.

Labour polled 2% and 2.7% in the Newbury & Christchurch by elections in 1993, the latter where their vote fell by 9.4% didn't stop them winning a landslide in 1997.

Would your piece cover Airdrie and Shotts?

Fine if you think it’s irrelevant, I think it’s strange that, after the supposedly toxic leader has been removed, the new one repeatedly does worse and evades criticism for it.

It's not irrelevant I said context.

Chesham & Amersham amongst the churn I'm certain some Labour people voted tactically in a seat Labour was never going to win. If Labour people are going to start voting tactically for the Lib Dems for the first time since 2010 then that is potentially huge for the Tories.

Hartlepool, as the PBers who knew it well, said it would be a Tory gain because it would have been in 2019 if BXP hadn't stood.

Foxy said:

IanB2 said:

Don’t fancy it.

Me neither. 3 years is a long time at this age.

Charles said:

Sandpit said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More OT medical news.

The Telegraph has found a GP practice that is temporarily closed because its public liability insurance has lapsed. The Telegraph is paywalled but here is the doctors' website:-

The Blandford Group Practice has had to make the difficult decision to temporarily postpone non-urgent routine appointments due to a lapse in public liability insurance.

Our team are working extremely hard to put measures in place to allow services to return to normal at the earliest opportunity, this includes the weekend vaccination clinics.

We would like to reassure patients that this is an insurance issue and not a clinical care issue.
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/

Of much more interest, would be exactly why their insurance ‘lapsed’. Either they’ve no money to pay the renewal, or there was a good reason for the quote being a lot higher than they might have expected - such as a claim or claims made against it. If it were simply an administrative error, it could be solved in hours and without needing to issue statements to the press.

I don't think that explains it. Cover is free for the practice, universal and doesn't need to be applied for:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/clinical-schemes/general-practice-indemnity/clinical-negligence-scheme-for-general-practice/

That was my immediate thought too. It tends to suggest to me that there is some particular reason why the insurers are not willing to cover those doctors anymore which really must be some sort of clinical issue, despite their statement.

It also sounds like it’s capacity - so may be one doctor and they can’t find a locum?

In which case, their public statement about the closure being insurance-related is, erm, untrue.

Watching from afar, one gets the impression that a number of GP practices are taking the piss, and appear to be very difficult to hold to account.

Well I was wondering if - say - 1 out of 4 doctors is the issue in that s/he can’t get insurance…

But my local GP is still closed

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Foxy said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

Charles said:

DavidL said:

Foxy said:

Sandpit said:

DecrepiterJohnL said:

More OT medical news.

The Telegraph has found a GP practice that is temporarily closed because its public liability insurance has lapsed. The Telegraph is paywalled but here is the doctors' website:-

The Blandford Group Practice has had to make the difficult decision to temporarily postpone non-urgent routine appointments due to a lapse in public liability insurance.

Our team are working extremely hard to put measures in place to allow services to return to normal at the earliest opportunity, this includes the weekend vaccination clinics.

We would like to reassure patients that this is an insurance issue and not a clinical care issue.
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/

Of much more interest, would be exactly why their insurance ‘lapsed’. Either they’ve no money to pay the renewal, or there was a good reason for the quote being a lot higher than they might have expected - such as a claim or claims made against it. If it were simply an administrative error, it could be solved in hours and without needing to issue statements to the press.

I don't think that explains it. Cover is free for the practice, universal and doesn't need to be applied for:

https://resolution.nhs.uk/services/claims-management/clinical-schemes/general-practice-indemnity/clinical-negligence-scheme-for-general-practice/

That was my immediate thought too. It tends to suggest to me that there is some particular reason why the insurers are not willing to cover those doctors anymore which really must be some sort of clinical issue, despite their statement.

It also sounds like it’s capacity - so may be one doctor and they can’t find a locum?

The website linked above shows ten doctors spread over four surgeries. However, the earnings declaration gives the average salary as only £53,000 which suggests an awful lot of part-timers, in fact 2 full-time and 16 part-time, so maybe there are scheduling issues if no-one fancies Friday afternoon at the wrong end of town, say.
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/our-staff
https://www.theblandfordgrouppractice.co.uk/gp-earnings

ETA we talked the other day about the increasing number of doctors opting for part-time work, and gap years during training.

One of the practical issues is that while partners get paid more, filling those posts is getting harder. People just don't want the hassles that go with it. Only 2 full tumers in a team of 18 must be difficult.

I think one common feature with the HGV issue is that a lot of folk have found out during lockdowns that they like more time at home, and the pleasures therein. No point in thrashing yourself to an early grave chasing a few consumer baubles, take it easy and cut your hours even at the expense of pay.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Northern_Al said:

Incidentally, I don't think Starmer's lorry-manoeuvre mishap is necessarily a negative for him. It's got him lots of publicity. It wouldn't have been mentioned in the media or on here were it not for the error. All publicity and all that.... If he's smart (yes, I know), he should think of a good gag about it before his next media interview or HoC appearance. Boris will raise it, no doubt. He can probably contrast his mishap with Boris's absence in a paid-for villa well out of the financial reach of red-wall voters. Or something like that.

Most people can't reverse park very easily so maybe he wins points for relatability or something?

It would do if he weren't such a personality vacuum.

It's easy to imagine how Johnson would have reacted in the same situation. A joke or a laugh at himself, something human at least, "gosh, this is harder than it looks", "I had better stick to the day job", "we don't even have wing mirrors when steering the ship of state", "this must be why Maggie said she wasn't for turning"..

It's Starmer's response that shows he doesn't have the charismatic touch that allows people to relate to him. He's awkward. He's not enjoying himself. It's clearly a trial that he has to endure.

I have some sympathy for him. I'd be the same, probably worse, if I found myself in that situation. But then I have the good sense to recognise I'm not a people person, and that I don't have the skills for a career in politics.

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If, as has been suggested, we are a million people fewer in UK population than in Feb 2020, that’s half of the 3.5% in GDP/capita terms. The per capita figures should be past the real-terms Q1 2020 level next year.

If the IFS forecasts are correct, that leaves a huge margin for the Chancellor to cut taxes before the election.

No comment on the innumerate media doom-mongers, I’ve made thousands of them over the past 20 months!

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

MaxPB said:

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If, as has been suggested, we are a million people fewer in UK population than in Feb 2020, that’s half of the 3.5% in GDP/capita terms. The per capita figures should be past the real-terms Q1 2020 level next year.

If the IFS forecasts are correct, that leaves a huge margin for the Chancellor to cut taxes before the election.

No comment on the innumerate media doom-mongers, I’ve made thousands of them over the past 20 months!

RobD said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If, as has been suggested, we are a million people fewer in UK population than in Feb 2020, that’s half of the 3.5% in GDP/capita terms. The per capita figures should be past the real-terms Q1 2020 level next year.

If the IFS forecasts are correct, that leaves a huge margin for the Chancellor to cut taxes before the election.

No comment on the innumerate media doom-mongers, I’ve made thousands of them over the past 20 months!

They are doing a terrible job re: expectations management. The continuation of civilization in a few years' time will be viewed as a massive victory for the government.

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.

Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.

isam said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Northern_Al said:

Incidentally, I don't think Starmer's lorry-manoeuvre mishap is necessarily a negative for him. It's got him lots of publicity. It wouldn't have been mentioned in the media or on here were it not for the error. All publicity and all that.... If he's smart (yes, I know), he should think of a good gag about it before his next media interview or HoC appearance. Boris will raise it, no doubt. He can probably contrast his mishap with Boris's absence in a paid-for villa well out of the financial reach of red-wall voters. Or something like that.

Most people can't reverse park very easily so maybe he wins points for relatability or something?

It would do if he weren't such a personality vacuum.

It's easy to imagine how Johnson would have reacted in the same situation. A joke or a laugh at himself, something human at least, "gosh, this is harder than it looks", "I had better stick to the day job", "we don't even have wing mirrors when steering the ship of state", "this must be why Maggie said she wasn't for turning"..

It's Starmer's response that shows he doesn't have the charismatic touch that allows people to relate to him. He's awkward. He's not enjoying himself. It's clearly a trial that he has to endure.

I have some sympathy for him. I'd be the same, probably worse, if I found myself in that situation. But then I have the good sense to recognise I'm not a people person, and that I don't have the skills for a career in politics.

I have sympathy for him too. When I say I think he’s going to struggle because he’s quite dull, especially relative to Boris, it’s not a wish that he started trying to be a Jack the lad, more that he’s just not the right man for the job, because a big part of being LotO is having the personality that brings people with you.

I can’t see many people even noticing the HGV incident though, I wouldn’t say it was a big deal.

squareroot2 said:

kjh said:

squareroot2 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.

So what....

If you are in a job where conflict of interest can occur having a holiday paid for by someone else is rather important even if no conflict occurs. I had such a role before I retired and I would never have done that.

As longvas it is decared its not an issue. Blair had lots of holidays paid for by others eg Branson

Mexicanpete said:

squareroot2 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.

So what....

I pay for my own holidays, and so do most other voters.

squareroot2 said:

isam said:

LostPassword said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Northern_Al said:

Incidentally, I don't think Starmer's lorry-manoeuvre mishap is necessarily a negative for him. It's got him lots of publicity. It wouldn't have been mentioned in the media or on here were it not for the error. All publicity and all that.... If he's smart (yes, I know), he should think of a good gag about it before his next media interview or HoC appearance. Boris will raise it, no doubt. He can probably contrast his mishap with Boris's absence in a paid-for villa well out of the financial reach of red-wall voters. Or something like that.

Most people can't reverse park very easily so maybe he wins points for relatability or something?

It would do if he weren't such a personality vacuum.

It's easy to imagine how Johnson would have reacted in the same situation. A joke or a laugh at himself, something human at least, "gosh, this is harder than it looks", "I had better stick to the day job", "we don't even have wing mirrors when steering the ship of state", "this must be why Maggie said she wasn't for turning"..

It's Starmer's response that shows he doesn't have the charismatic touch that allows people to relate to him. He's awkward. He's not enjoying himself. It's clearly a trial that he has to endure.

I have some sympathy for him. I'd be the same, probably worse, if I found myself in that situation. But then I have the good sense to recognise I'm not a people person, and that I don't have the skills for a career in politics.

I have sympathy for him too. When I say I think he’s going to struggle because he’s quite dull, especially relative to Boris, it’s not a wish that he started trying to be a Jack the lad, more that he’s just not the right man for the job, because a big part of being LotO is having the personality that brings people with you.

I can’t see many people even noticing the HGV incident though, I wouldn’t say it was a big deal.

It feeds into the narrative.. how many have seen it on twitter... did the BBC show it on the news?

squareroot2 said:

kjh said:

squareroot2 said:

Dura_Ace said:

Casino_Royale said:

I hold no pen for Boris and I really don't understand why we seem to begrudge all PMs a holiday.

Johnson's are secretive, frequent and ALWAYS paid for by somebody else.

So what....

If you are in a job where conflict of interest can occur having a holiday paid for by someone else is rather important even if no conflict occurs. I had such a role before I retired and I would never have done that.

As longvas it is decared its not an issue. Blair had lots of holidays paid for by others eg Branson

kjh said:

Unpopular said:

Foxy said:

squareroot2 said:

noneoftheabove said:

squareroot2 said:

We ought to have had a thread, just to even things up on Starmer being a prat, unable to reverse a lorry without crashing into something. It's a metaphor for his leadership innit??

Write one then? Or just have a quick daily repetitive and boring moan about it instead......

Well it induced you to comment.. . Some of the people on here are so one eyed, it does no harm to point out that a lot of the criticism is pure bile and based on ideological loathing rather than substantive criticism.

It does no harm to point out that Starmer is ffing useless and leading an utterly divided party. Didn't he have a real car crash recently as well as the political ones.

Is there a Starmer supporter on here? Even the loyalists have him as uninspiring, dull and wooden, albeit worthy, and the harshest vitriol comes from the few Corbynites.

It's not as if PB is a hymn of praise for the LOTO!

I quite like him, I'll admit. My feeling is (and it is just a feeling, or perhaps more a desperate hope from one who is not a Labour member but generally well disposed to the party) that he would make a good Prime Minister. I think the criticism of his political skills is a bit overdone. Despite the conference vote against reverting back to the electoral college, my understanding is that he pretty much got what he wanted at conference. Was the EC a bridge too far, or was it a deliberate extreme position to get more votes for the more moderate changes he actually wanted?

However, I don't think he actually speaks that well (he's articulate, but his voice is not a good orator's voice) and he's not as charismatic as Boris. I worry how he will campaign in a GE and the big worry is that he is Kinnock part II. If his leadership doesn't result in a huge increase in seats, or a hung parliament, I think the left will be in no mood to continue with a more moderate leader and the project will be discredited irreparably. Kinnock II will not result in Blair II.

Anyway, back up to my loft! This has become a three day job and taken up much of my holiday... Grumble...

I quite like him but have no idea what Labour would do if they got into power. I see no plan for anything.
[Snip]

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

You think the NT doesn't spend a lot of time thinking about homosexuals too?

There are plenty of loons on your side too - your post alone shows how tone-deaf you are to seeing this - and
you should read my post on English Heritage for an example of how to do it.

Unfortunately, the NT leadership have been too obstinate and ignorant for too long though, so have to go.

To be honest I have visited loads of NT properties and I don't recall ever seeing anything about homosexuals. Perhaps there was but I didn't notice it, because gay people are just a normal part of the world I live in. This guy spent his entire statement frothing about them. I have no interest in seeing the leadership at the NT replaced by a motley crew of gay-bashers and climate change deniers.

LostPassword said:

Philip_Thompson said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If the UK is heading seriously towards economic growth and a surplus then the Treasury should be thinking about tax cuts, not tax rises that scar the growth.

Though I expect any tax cuts will come in the form of Income Tax cuts reducing further the 'burden' on those who don't work for a living, rather than rebalancing so that the working and non-working face the same.

If we're heading to a surplus on the back of robust growth then it probably makes sense to take some money out of the economy - by repaying some of the national debt - to avoid an inflationary boom/bust cycle and so that we can more easily finance the next crisis.

But I have been expecting a pre-election tax cut for some time.

Cookie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.

Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.

"They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.

TimS said:

So perhaps British political success does come down to one thing: can you pull off performing stunts and looking silly but get away with it?

+
Boris: too many examples to mention
Thatcher: riding in a tank
Blair: heading football with Keegan
Farage: plane crash

-
May: dancing
Hague: baseball cap at theme park
Keir: HGV lesson
Kinnock: beach walk

etc.

Cookie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.

Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.

"They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.

Philip_Thompson said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.

Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.

It is inappropriate and undue if you're "outing" someone who didn't want that and didn't choose that. Is that your decision to make?

Theuniondivvie said:

Cookie said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Charles said:

OnlyLivingBoy said:

Casino_Royale said:

tlg86 said:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/oct/13/national-trust-warns-of-threat-from-ideological-campaign-waged-against-it

Is @Casino_Royale running Restore Trust?

Nope, but I support it.

They have absolutely no-one to blame but themselves for its creation.

Some of them are absolute loons though, reading through their statements in the voting bumf I got sent by the NT. One of them obviously spends a *lot* of his time thinking about homosexuals. It will be a shame if the small steps the NT has recently made in the direction of no longer whitewashing the history of their properties are reversed if these dinosaurs get elected. Anyway, I've voted against them and many NT members of my acquaintance have done too.

The NT went too far though.

A good friend of mine’s cousin gave a family home to the NT. He (the cousin) was a very private man who never talked about his sexuality but was probably gay.

The NT announced gleefully to the world that he was gay and did a big song and dance about it.

That strikes me as a gross invasion of privacy.

Maybe the NT just don't think there's anything wrong with being gay? Maybe they don't want gay people and gay history to be invisible? I thought it was highly revealing that one of these "anti woke" people described discussions of people's sexuality as "salacious".

I don't think that's highly revealing, unless you're confused as to what salacious means.

Salacious means having or conveying undue or inappropriate interest in sexual matters. Like Charles says, some people prefer to keep these things private - and it is a very private matter. The reason the NT like to do is so they can signal things about themselves to others, so it's actually a very selfish thing to do, wrapped up in moral superiority, with an oven-ready go-to defence of bigotry to anyone who objects.

I refuse to answer questions on my sexuality on diversity forms out of principle - that doesn't mean I have a problem with anyone being gay.

Congratulations on googling "salacious". My point is that talking about gay people and gay history isn't salacious - it isn't inappropriate or undue. Rather, it is appropriate and overdue. Their history is a vital and important part of our history and heritage. Their lives and lifestyles are interesting, in the same way as the lives and lifestyles of heterosexual people are interesting. More so, sometimes, because their stories haven't been told before. It is entirely right that visitors to NT properties, gay and straight alike, should have the opportunity to find out about them.
What you fill in in diversity monitoring forms is entirely up to you, there is always a prefer not to say option. These forms help organisations to understand who they are reaching. I noticed that the gay obsessed guy standing for election at the NT found this form deeply triggering too.

"They" aren't some weird other living among us. 'Their' lifestyles were for the most part indistinguishable from 'our' lifestyles. It would be weird if you applied this level of fascination to any other characteristic - lets celebrate left-handed history, so we attract left-handed people to NT properties and make sure left-handers' contribution to our story is fully acknowledged?
Once upon a time - before my time, so I don't know of which I speak here - when gay people really were marginalised, perhaps I could see an argument for it. Now, it is just empty sloganeering.

I’d thought the NT examples are from a time when gay people were marginalised, ie they could be imprisoned for pursuing their preferred form of sexual activity. Is that incorrect?

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If, as has been suggested, we are a million people fewer in UK population than in Feb 2020, that’s half of the 3.5% in GDP/capita terms. The per capita figures should be past the real-terms Q1 2020 level next year.

If the IFS forecasts are correct, that leaves a huge margin for the Chancellor to cut taxes before the election.

No comment on the innumerate media doom-mongers, I’ve made thousands of them over the past 20 months!

Who says that? I mean I know our counting is bad, but... nobody's noticed a million people leaving not since Brexit but since Feb 20?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/08/million-people-left-britain-pandemic-exodus-brexit

It will be very interesting to see the census data on this subject. The thinking is that many of the million were immigrants returning ‘home’, following redundancy or furlough from low-paid service-sector work.

TOPPING said:

PB types:

People who loathe twitter: post about twitter all day
People who loathe the EU: post about the EU all day
People who loathe woke*: you get the idea

*whatever it is

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

TheWhiteRabbit said:

Sandpit said:

MaxPB said:

Economy now just 0.8% below Feb 2020, we're almost there. Still need to recover another 3.5% in total to be where we would have been with no pandemic. That seems tougher now with the global supply issues than without. We've got 1.4% growth pencilled in for the final 4 months of the year and 2022 essentially goes back to trend of about 2% per year. We will exit the pandemic with the economy permanently ~2% smaller than it would otherwise have been, a year of lost growth. Compared to the GFC it's nowhere near as bad permanent scarring and the resulting cuts/tax rises won't need to be anywhere near as severe.

The IFS put out their forecast a few days ago and they agree, they think we'll be in surplus by 2024/25, three years earlier than is currently officially forecast.

It's an odd sensation where the official data says one thing (that the UK economy is growing pretty well) and the political and media rhetoric is very much the opposite with collapse and armageddon predicted every other day. I do wonder whether basic numeracy among the media and political class is driving this, we saw how they couldn't cope with any of the virus maths and now I think we're seeing it with all of their doom laden predictions based on anecdote and, frankly, hopecasting that the UK fails post-Brexit.

If, as has been suggested, we are a million people fewer in UK population than in Feb 2020, that’s half of the 3.5% in GDP/capita terms. The per capita figures should be past the real-terms Q1 2020 level next year.

If the IFS forecasts are correct, that leaves a huge margin for the Chancellor to cut taxes before the election.

No comment on the innumerate media doom-mongers, I’ve made thousands of them over the past 20 months!

Who says that? I mean I know our counting is bad, but... nobody's noticed a million people leaving not since Brexit but since Feb 20?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/mar/08/million-people-left-britain-pandemic-exodus-brexit

It will be very interesting to see the census data on this subject. The thinking is that many of the million were immigrants returning ‘home’, following redundancy or furlough from low-paid service-sector work.

It quotes the ONS but I am not sure that is the ONS view, at least not yet:

1. The UK population was estimated to be 66,796,807 in mid-2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2019estimates
2. The population of the UK at mid-year 2020 was estimated to be 67.1 million, an increase of about 284,000 (0.4%) since mid-year 2019. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/populationestimates/bulletins/annualmidyearpopulationestimates/mid2020

They clarify that in the 2020 part of that they consider there was low inward AND outward migration so not really setting up for a complete reversal in the last 6 months of 2020.