For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
Certainly but that was political rather than economic.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
I disagree, Nick. The west was caught napping, and there was a growing belief that the US wasn’t going to respond. I think a fairly noisy response was probably necessary. Ukraine is not a small country, and they will fight whether or not we help them. Our assistance probably makes an invasion less, not more likely.
The redwall voted were loaned to Boris, note Boris not the Tories, in 2019 to get Brexit done.
Not true
"When asked about reasons for their vote in 2019, there were far more mentions of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party than of the prime minister, and little evidence that he was uniquely popular with these voters." Eye-opening from @p_surridge https://www.ft.com/content/6062ecf0-70d8-4433-bc3b-b2a66dfd162c
Exactly, HUFYD likes to focus on Johnson's landslide which is only true if you look at seats won.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
It was that increase in the Tory voteshare which won the Tories a big enough majority to get Brexit done.
Voters who disliked Corbyn and disliked Brexit mainly switched to LD in 2019 not Tory
My point was that Johnson barely got more votes than May 2 years earlier. He is not the fantastic vote magnet you keep trying to tell us is.
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
Go with your heart then? Get off the flight.
I recently disembarked from a long haul business class seat just as they were about to close the doors. Admittedly not ideal as they had to remove my hold luggage.
If your heart says you don't want to come back, why do it? You only get one life.
Because my older daughter has done REALLY well in her mocks and I want to take her somewhere special during half term, as a present. She’s earned it
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
There is no Civil Service pension fund, it is a pay as you go scheme. It is "notionally funded" ie they work out contributions based on current and future liabilities as if there were a fund. I presume military pensions are paid on the same basis.
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
Another Conservative supporter bleating on about what the Opposition would or wouldn't have done had they been in charge.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
If you're replacing a government, "this government bad" isn't enough - you have to compare it to what the alternative would have done.
In the case of Covid, the first year of the pandemic would have been almost identical under Labour. The second year would have been far, far worse.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Well the 'envy of the world' would certainly like to have its part in the care homes deaths forgotten.
That said I don't think the government deserves any gratitude for its covid response - it got some things right and got some things wrong.
And many of the things it got wrong were senseless.
On the other hand a Starmer government would have handled things significantly worse.
The option wasn't a Starmer government. A *Corbyn* government would have handled it worse, thats for sure. Not sure about Starmer.
The main attack line thrown about by Liar is that Starmer would have stuck with the EU vaccines system which would have presented us from having developed and rolled out the vaccine. The rather basic problem with that attack line is that it isn't true. At least according to the person who signed off the vaccine for use when asked at a Downing Street press conference.
And yet:
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
And yet what? The attack line is "would have stayed in the EU vaccinations programme which means we wouldn't have developed the vaccine."
That categorically isn't true. The medic (I forget her name) who personally signed off the vaccine said so directly at a Downing Street press conference.
That the EU has become a totemic issue isn't in question. But EU Vaccines = no vaccine is just incorrect. Wrong. A lie.
We’d have developed the vaccine - but having handed procurement over to the EU would have got it slower - remember when the EU tried to slow down our vaccine roll out by two months so they could speed up by a week?
And then Starmer would have slowed down vaccination of oldies in favour of school staff - against scientific advice:
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
Well, he's ignorant about one thing. Six months non-means-tested unemployment benefit is still available, under the name JSA, and it was never "no questions asked", the legislation says you have to be available for and actively seeking work and as long as I can remember it has been the Jobcentre's role to enforce it. I know it's not central to his argument, but if he's wrong about one simple thing it hardly gives you confidence.
John available and actively seeking work is a joke
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Welcome to the dark side, Bev. Rich Tory pensioners were sacrificed so that young Labour voters had a hospital bed when they needed one. Outrageous.
Do not be so daft. It was not planned, it was just common-or-garden incompetence. However no one has been sanctioned for it. The unecessary, early deaths of thousands has been consequence free.
The vacated hospital beds were subsequently filled by people with no vaccine protection, but I cannot recall any of them being checked for political affiliations.
It was a choice they made.
They were worried about overload in the hospital system (northern Italy was at the same time). They chose to empty beds as far as they could. They also felt that old people in hospital would be vulnerable to incoming covid patients.
Unfortunately they didn’t know about asymptomatic covid
They did know. They were given explicit warnings by the NHS which they ignored. They then tried to blame the NHS for it and said they knew nothing was done locally. Which was rather disproved by the leaked correspondence showing them ordering the NHS to do so.
Whether it was the least worst option as they saw it or not, they could have been honest and owned it. Instead it was lie after lie.
It’s not being wise after the event, either. You can look back on the threads here from early 2020.
It was a decision which killed my father, and about two thirds of his fellow residents at his care home. What still rankles is the dishonesty. I think we’ve all acknowledged that mistakes happen in government, and are almost inevitable in crises, but the spinning since has been pretty sickening.
Things can be a both/and rather than an either/or.
Depending upon their personal views some people want to blame the government for things which other organisations shared the mistake or praise the government for things which other organisations shared the correct decision.
And that can be taken down to the next level - for example the decision whether to have a lockdown for Omicron had both supporters and opponents within the government.
I’m not clear what all of that means. What’s certain is that the discharge policy was a clear national instruction to discharge patient into care homes irrespective of their infection status, as I documented here at the time.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
We pay it already David , or did you miss that part, and as he says with many never making it we woudl actually be a lot better off not having to pay for the pampered south who live much longer as a consequence. Unionists just cannot accept facts, they prefer the too wee too poor mince every time. PS: You are turning into Carlotta.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
The redwall voted were loaned to Boris, note Boris not the Tories, in 2019 to get Brexit done.
Not true
"When asked about reasons for their vote in 2019, there were far more mentions of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour party than of the prime minister, and little evidence that he was uniquely popular with these voters." Eye-opening from @p_surridge https://www.ft.com/content/6062ecf0-70d8-4433-bc3b-b2a66dfd162c
Exactly, HUFYD likes to focus on Johnson's landslide which is only true if you look at seats won.
There was no surge of support for Johnson, it's a total myth. May polled 13.6 million votes in 2017, Johnson polled 13.9 in 2019. He increased the Tory vote by a paltry 1.2%.
Johnson won lots of seats because the Labour vote dropped dramatically due to Corbyn. the 2019 outcome was far more down to Corbyn than it waste Johnson.
It was that increase in the Tory voteshare which won the Tories a big enough majority to get Brexit done.
Voters who disliked Corbyn and disliked Brexit mainly switched to LD in 2019 not Tory
My point was that Johnson barely got more votes than May 2 years earlier. He is not the fantastic vote magnet you keep trying to tell us is.
The 1.2% swing to the Tories from 2017 to 2019 Johnson got was enough to get the small Tory majority needed to deliver Brexit on its own.
Even if there had been zero swing from Labour to LD from 2017 to 2019 at all amongst Remainers who disliked Corbyn
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
Versus US English, I think, malcolm. Which is widespread elsewhere (almost universal in S Korea, for instance).
There are hundreds of different English accents though. I have never heard of a British English one. Next he will be saying we have a British Scottish accent or a British Welsh accent
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Fault is really irrelevant to the independence question. And the difference between 6.6% and 8% is not small.
The main cause of the growth in the gap is the reducing contribution of the North Sea. If you go back far enough Scotland was paying more than its fair share of the tax. But what we are seeing now is the reality that an independent Scotland would face and it would be tough. Not third world poverty or anything, but seriously tougher than we have right now.
For me, the only question is how do we reverse this dependence on England whether we remain a part of the UK or go independent? How do we create an economy that can pay for the high public spending we think we need or deserve? It is the same issue of levelling up that Gove is wrestling with in the north of England and it is not a simple problem. Sadly, the SNP have no interest in answering that question.
God, return journeys to wintry Britain are always tough. But this is one of the worst
I feel like I am being ripped untimely from the womb
Go with your heart then? Get off the flight.
I recently disembarked from a long haul business class seat just as they were about to close the doors. Admittedly not ideal as they had to remove my hold luggage.
If your heart says you don't want to come back, why do it? You only get one life.
Because my older daughter has done REALLY well in her mocks and I want to take her somewhere special during half term, as a present. She’s earned it
You are too soft! I just told my daughter that she would have to keep working hard so she could do equally well in her actual exams. Mind you, even our mediocre half term plans fell through thanks to Covid, so perhaps it's as well that I take this Calvinist kind of approach to parenting. Enjoy your half term.
It's obviously far too early to call the next election with any certainty - the economic headwinds look difficult and any post-Covid "gratitude" looks to be shortlived ...
I think that, outside of Conservative supporters, post-covid gratitude is zero. Protecting the country from threats like pandemics is what we elect the govt for. It is their actual day job.
Should we be grateful that they did what they were supposed to do? Is that how far we have fallen?
And that does not even take into account the moving of Covid positive people into Care Homes which wiped out the over 80s in some homes. Something which seems to have been forgotten as the flags get waved...
Welcome to the dark side, Bev. Rich Tory pensioners were sacrificed so that young Labour voters had a hospital bed when they needed one. Outrageous.
Do not be so daft. It was not planned, it was just common-or-garden incompetence. However no one has been sanctioned for it. The unecessary, early deaths of thousands has been consequence free.
The vacated hospital beds were subsequently filled by people with no vaccine protection, but I cannot recall any of them being checked for political affiliations.
It was a choice they made.
They were worried about overload in the hospital system (northern Italy was at the same time). They chose to empty beds as far as they could. They also felt that old people in hospital would be vulnerable to incoming covid patients.
Unfortunately they didn’t know about asymptomatic covid
They did know. They were given explicit warnings by the NHS which they ignored. They then tried to blame the NHS for it and said they knew nothing was done locally. Which was rather disproved by the leaked correspondence showing them ordering the NHS to do so.
Whether it was the least worst option as they saw it or not, they could have been honest and owned it. Instead it was lie after lie.
It’s not being wise after the event, either. You can look back on the threads here from early 2020.
It was a decision which killed my father, and about two thirds of his fellow residents at his care home. What still rankles is the dishonesty. I think we’ve all acknowledged that mistakes happen in government, and are almost inevitable in crises, but the spinning since has been pretty sickening.
Things can be a both/and rather than an either/or.
Depending upon their personal views some people want to blame the government for things which other organisations shared the mistake or praise the government for things which other organisations shared the correct decision.
And that can be taken down to the next level - for example the decision whether to have a lockdown for Omicron had both supporters and opponents within the government.
I’m not clear what all of that means. What’s certain is that the discharge policy was a clear national instruction to discharge patient into care homes irrespective of their infection status, as I documented here at the time.
Implemented across all 4 administrations, so presumably in line with and not against advice?
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
Versus US English, I think, malcolm. Which is widespread elsewhere (almost universal in S Korea, for instance).
There are hundreds of different English accents though. I have never heard of a British English one. Next he will be saying we have a British Scottish accent or a British Welsh accent
I think most people would use the term to refer to a Received Pronunciation or "BBC English" accent, as it used to be called. Which is presumably an English accent.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Bollox, the expenditure is just made up, those clowns do not have a clue what it is spent on , they just allocate all of the debt to Scotland. Only a halfwitted moron would believe that all the money borrowed is for Scotland.
The people around Keir Starmer have no political vision other than 'attack and humiliate the left'. That's a tragedy for Labour, but above all, it's a tragedy for the country.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Fault is really irrelevant to the independence question. And the difference between 6.6% and 8% is not small.
The main cause of the growth in the gap is the reducing contribution of the North Sea. If you go back far enough Scotland was paying more than its fair share of the tax. But what we are seeing now is the reality that an independent Scotland would face and it would be tough. Not third world poverty or anything, but seriously tougher than we have right now.
For me, the only question is how do we reverse this dependence on England whether we remain a part of the UK or go independent? How do we create an economy that can pay for the high public spending we think we need or deserve? It is the same issue of levelling up that Gove is wrestling with in the north of England and it is not a simple problem. Sadly, the SNP have no interest in answering that question.
It's the same question perhaps but the problem is worse in most parts of Northern England and in Wales and Northern Ireland. Scotland is one of the parts of the UK that is less dependent on London/SE cash.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
There is no Civil Service pension fund, it is a pay as you go scheme. It is "notionally funded" ie they work out contributions based on current and future liabilities as if there were a fund. I presume military pensions are paid on the same basis.
Indeed but there are schemes that are at least partly funded for LG and education (or at least some parts of it).
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
PS: You are turning into Carlotta.
And in Scotland it will be on hisher say so, thanks to your government.
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
Another Conservative supporter bleating on about what the Opposition would or wouldn't have done had they been in charge.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
If you're replacing a government, "this government bad" isn't enough - you have to compare it to what the alternative would have done.
In the case of Covid, the first year of the pandemic would have been almost identical under Labour. The second year would have been far, far worse.
You simply cannot say that with any certainty, Applicant.
It's a reasonable assumption but it doesn't matter anyway because, as Stodge indicated, they were not the Government. You don't excuse Chamberlain's policy of Appeasement on the grounds that the opposition would have done likewise, if not more so. You don't excuse Blair's Iraq policy because the opposition Party was even more gung-ho than his own.
You judge the Government of its day on its merits.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
We pay it already David , or did you miss that part, and as he says with many never making it we woudl actually be a lot better off not having to pay for the pampered south who live much longer as a consequence. Unionists just cannot accept facts, they prefer the too wee too poor mince every time. PS: You are turning into Carlotta.
You're double counting Malcolm, as does he. The £8.5bn we pay now reflects the fact that Scots on average die significantly earlier. If we lived as long as those in the south we would be paying a lot more. So this is not a gain that comes on independence, it is already reflected in the figures that we use.
Can Scotland afford the State Pension? The answer is Yes and we can use the Brit Nat bible of the GERS date to show that. Table 1.1 in GERS 2021 puts National Insurance collected in Scotland at £11,476 million, which is 8% of the UK total. NI is more regressive than Income Tax as Scottish income tax is only 6.6% of UK total. The State Pension (in Box 3.2) is given as £8,517 million. So it covers the State Pension in Scotland with £2,959 left to go towards other welfare payments. Universal Credit is put at £3,170 so our NI receipts essentially cover both the State Pension and Universal Credit. Housing Benefit (£1380m) does not come out of the NI Fund. HMRC Child and Tax Credits (£1864m) also not from the NI Fund. Scottish Social Security (£3897 m) is separately paid out of the block grant. So just leaves 'Other DWP Social Security', whatever that is, of £2593 m. That may or may not have anything to do with the NI Fund, most likely not, if it is e.g. pensioner TV licences, winter fuel and cold weather payments, and things like that.
The position in regards to the present UK State Pension is really no different to other National Insurance entitlements such as Unemployment Benefit (I know it doesn't really exist, but Scotland certainly needs to get back to a proper scheme - it was never means tested and it was no questions asked for 6 months so long as you had two years NI payments). Scotland will take over all those in work entitlements and in just the same way it will take over the rUK State Pension. That will be for folk domiciled in Scotland on Indy Day, perhaps with some residency qualification such as 1 year prior to Indy, either in receipt of the rUK state pension at that point or via transfer of their NI record for those not yet getting a pension. As we plan to increase the SUP to the EU average you don't want to encourage of rush of pensioners from England moving north just before Indy Day in order to qualify for a higher Scottish Pension.
After Independence there are existing mechanisms for transferring state pension entitlements between some countries which we could negotiate with rUK (for example Scots moving to England could transfer into the rUK state pension and the same in the other direction with a net payment one way or the other depending on how many and how many years of entitlement). Otherwise standard rules would be Scotland pays out entitlements to the SUP regardless of where you now choose to live, and rUK pays out their entitlements even if the pensioner chooses to move to Scotland.
Hope that helps,
Tim
Dr Tim Rideout
The acceptance that Scotland will have to pay its own pensions is roughly £8.5bn that was apparently not in Kate Forbes' sums. To put that into context it is £1600 per annum for every man, woman, whatever other category the SNP want to invent and child in the country.
To suggest that certain costs don't count because they get paid out of the block grant in the context of independence is, frankly, bizarre. I note that he also ignores the cost of health and social care. I also disagree with him that the rUK would continue to pay pensions for those still in work where there is a fund but I do agree that those funds would have to be split with Scotland getting a share.
The fundamental problem is highlighted by some of the figures in that response. Scotland pays roughly 6.6% of the UK's IT (and an even smaller proportion of its CT) but has 8% of the population. The issue is not whether an independent Scotland can pay pensions on independence but at what rate we can pay them. And the answer is that even if we do not lose some of our existing businesses in finance and a number of our HRTs (which we will) Scotland would need to cut public spending by roughly 20% to balance the books. And that will include pensions.
What's so interesting is that Scotland earns and pays tax at a similar rate as the UK.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
Bollox, the expenditure is just made up, those clowns do not have a clue what it is spent on , they just allocate all of the debt to Scotland. Only a halfwitted moron would believe that all the money borrowed is for Scotland.
Well don't quote GERS then.
If I were the SNP I'd push wind really, really hard. Effective during this period of high energy costs.
- Announce levy on all Scottish electricity that is exported to RUK/ROW. - Kick up a fuss when Whitehall blocks it - Announce open season for offshore wind in Scotland, sign agreements with EU(Germany) for export with Scots levy if independent - Show how this makes Scotland incredibly rich (doesn't have to be strictly accurate) - Section 30. Force denial, create lots of drama
The Germans have sold out a major European nation for cheaper energy bills. After the amount of blood and treasure other Europeans have spent to thwart their own aggression, it is deeply, deeply immoral to throw up their hands in appeasement when another aggressor arrives on the scene. Georgia was the Rhineland. Crimea was the Sudetenland. Ukraine is Czechoslovakia. And the Baltics will be Poland, where we are forced to intervene.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
WTF is a British English accent, even for you that is bollox hyperbole.
Versus US English, I think, malcolm. Which is widespread elsewhere (almost universal in S Korea, for instance).
There are hundreds of different English accents though. I have never heard of a British English one. Next he will be saying we have a British Scottish accent or a British Welsh accent
No, a Scottish English or Welsh English accent. In this context, English is the language...
A British opposition frontbencher apologized Monday for suggesting the country should have signed up to the EU’s vaccination scheme.
Catherine West, the Labour Party’s shadow Europe minister, said a 2020 message condemning the U.K.’s decision to opt out of the bloc-wide program to buy and distribute vaccines had now “proven to be wrong.”
West initially responded to a report on Britain’s move last year by tweeting: “Dumber and dumber.”
But she said in a fresh social media post Monday: “Last year, I tweeted about the EU vaccine scheme. My tweet has proven to be wrong, and I’ve now apologised and deleted it. Our NHS is doing a great job and I’ll continue supporting the effort to vaccine Britain.”
In response to the UK government’s decision to walk away from the latest initiative, Munira Wilson, the Liberal Democrats’ health spokeswoman, said: “When coronavirus is such a threat to people’s lives and livelihoods, ministers should leave no stone unturned in their bid to end the pandemic.
“This government’s stubborn unwillingness to work with the European Union through the current crisis is unforgivable.
“The crisis does not stop at any national border. It is about time the prime minister started showing leadership, including fully participating in all EU efforts to secure critical medical supplies and a vaccine.”
Aside from vaccines I don't think there's much doubt that Starmer would have had significantly more restrictions for significantly longer with all the resulting economic and social damage.
Another Conservative supporter bleating on about what the Opposition would or wouldn't have done had they been in charge.
The fact is (and this may come as a surprise) - the Conservative Party won the last GE, they are the Government and it is therefore them and their decisions in Government we are holding to account and scrutiny.
If you're replacing a government, "this government bad" isn't enough - you have to compare it to what the alternative would have done.
In the case of Covid, the first year of the pandemic would have been almost identical under Labour. The second year would have been far, far worse.
You simply cannot say that with any certainty, Applicant.
It's a reasonable assumption but it doesn't matter anyway because, as Stodge indicated, they were not the Government. You don't excuse Chamberlain's policy of Appeasement on the grounds that the opposition would have done likewise, if not more so. You don't excuse Blair's Iraq policy because the opposition Party was even more gung-ho than his own.
You judge the Government of its day on its merits.
And at an election you choose a government between the two options provided. A general election isn't solely a referendum on the preceding four or five years.
It's more than just "a reasonable assumption", too. It's crystal clear from everything that Labour spokespeople said that they would have implemented every disastrous restriction the government did, and many more that the government didn't.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Here is some advice from a Syrian to Ukrainians on tips and tricks for surviving war. Gives you a taste of what European weakness will be costing a European people bordering Poland.
The people around Keir Starmer have no political vision other than 'attack and humiliate the left'. That's a tragedy for Labour, but above all, it's a tragedy for the country.
Buried at the bottom of that report is a prediction of five MILLION refugees, if Russia properly invades
Jesus
And they'll all make straight for Primrose Hill, Leon.
Sure you want to get on that plane?
They absolutely will not. The vast majority of refugees end up in our poorest areas, particularly NE England.
NE England NW Yorks West Mid London Wales Scotland East Mid NI East SW SE
And if people dare to pipe up about their area becoming a dumping ground they’ll just be called racist by people whose wealthy areas are not dumping grounds.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
I did tip him heftily, so it worked
Nonetheless I have heard it here rom people here who have no incentive to make money out of me. And you can see the attitude in the streets. No names have been changed, all the British colonial Alberts and Winchesters and Windsors and Victorias and Edwards have been retained. The best hotels pump out Raj era glamour if they can
They worship high tea, the elite speak with perfect British English accents - then there is the cricket, of course, Which is a religion
It many ways it is like it is still a British colony, but run by the Sri Lankans, and owned by the Chinese
Actually lots of the street names have been changed, but some colonial era names do remain. And the colonial stuff is certainly something that gets dialled up to 11 for white tourists, who seem to love it. Certainly it's true that Ceylon as it then was was run on more enlightened lines than many other British colonies, especially towards the end when the British used it to trial internal self-government for the colonies. And the Sri Lankans had plenty of experience of being colonised, having previously had the Portuguese and the Dutch rule parts of the country, so having the British rule them wasn't much of a shock. It wasn't all great though; apart from anything else the humiliation of not being masters in one's own country. My father in law well remembers whites-only places like the Colombo Swimming Club where he was forbidden to enter (where my grandfather had happy memories of relaxing during WW2) and for his generation, who saw the country become independent in his childhood, independence is still a great source of pride. He would be among the first to criticise how the country has been misgoverened in the decades that followed, but would still prefer to have the opportunity to improve that in the hands of Sri Lankans not some distant colonial official. The situation with China is difficult - Sri Lanka like many smaller countries in the region finds itself squashed between the competing ambitions of India and China. Because India is closer and seen as more of a threat to Sri Lankan independence (with memories of its role in the civil war) I think the dangers of getting too close to China have been underappreciated, but that is changing rapidly. The Americans are widely mistrusted too although they are a declining influence now. I think perhaps among all this geopolitical jostling the memories of Britain's poor behaviour when it was top dog in the region are fading. It is our current relative impotence that means we are perhaps remembered more fondly than we deserve to be.
Yes, certainly some truth in that
Still, it is nice to be remembered fondly. Better than being hated, or not being remembered at all
The Dutch and the Portuguese were less benign, using Ceylon as a slave pen, for a start. And the Portuguese were phenomenally brutal, as they were everywhere (a fact overlooked today - the Portuguese were horrifically violent imperialists)
I think colonialism generally got less malign and more enlightened with time, as the colonising power became richer and more civilised and less dependent on raw brutal exploitation, and those enlightenment values of the universality of human rights had more time to work their magic. The colonialism of 1930s Ceylon on 19th century New Zealand was therefore very different from that of the Barbados sugar plantation. But don't underestimate as well the desire of people to say nice things to you, not just cynically because you might tip them more but also because you are a guest in their country and hospitality is important there, as it is in many Asian cultures. Because I am family I get to hear a less filtered set of opinions, perhaps. There is definitely a lot of affection for Britain but no desire to go back to the days of colonialism, in my experience.
Increased technology as well - machines became more profitable than exploiting people.
And actually late era British colonialism was still capable of some nasty stuff, eg vs the Mau Mau or for that matter our current shitty behaviour to the Chagossians.
The Mau Mau did some pretty nasty stuff themselves
Well that's OK then.
I had an old colonial Kenyan teacher at Grammar School. She was quite keen to promote your narrative, but not the alternative.
I dined at the Nairobi Club in 1988. Old colonial attitudes were certainly alive and well despite over 20 years of independence.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Buried at the bottom of that report is a prediction of five MILLION refugees, if Russia properly invades
Jesus
And they'll all make straight for Primrose Hill, Leon.
Sure you want to get on that plane?
They absolutely will not. The vast majority of refugees end up in our poorest areas, particularly NE England.
NE England NW Yorks West Mid London Wales Scotland East Mid NI East SW SE
That's down to the welfare cap. It caps the amount of support that can be given to any family, including refugees, and the cap includes rent. So if you try to house a refugee family in an area with high rental costs they end up with about £10 per week to spend on everything apart from rent. And even with the PB Let Them Eat Lentils Poverty Cookbook to hand that's a stretch. So they get sent to the areas where the rent is consistent with the welfare cap, ie poor areas. It's not a conspiracy, it's just what happens when an overheated property market meets a miserly and inflexible welfare system.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Yes like you I am a bad barterer, I usually end up with a crushing feeling that I am so much better off than the other side, why am I even quibbling over small change. But even that makes me feel guilty because by overpaying you are distorting the prices for everyone else. First World problems, but in the third world, I suppose. In Sri Lanka at least I can usually leave it up to other people.
Buried at the bottom of that report is a prediction of five MILLION refugees, if Russia properly invades
Jesus
And they'll all make straight for Primrose Hill, Leon.
Sure you want to get on that plane?
They absolutely will not. The vast majority of refugees end up in our poorest areas, particularly NE England.
NE England NW Yorks West Mid London Wales Scotland East Mid NI East SW SE
That's down to the welfare cap. It caps the amount of support that can be given to any family, including refugees, and the cap includes rent. So if you try to house a refugee family in an area with high rental costs they end up with about £10 per week to spend on everything apart from rent. And even with the PB Let Them Eat Lentils Poverty Cookbook to hand that's a stretch. So they get sent to the areas where the rent is consistent with the welfare cap, ie poor areas. It's not a conspiracy, it's just what happens when an overheated property market meets a miserly and inflexible welfare system.
The benefit cap*
Welfare cap is a limit on government expenditure, rather than on household benefit award.
And this is a function of LHAs, BRMAs etc. As you say, it all depends on whether the family gets housing support through their UC award - I'm not sure whether that is the case for refugees who are often holed up in hotels.
Note also that the BC is different in London, and mostly affects families with at least two children.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Of course Russia is the aggressor.
Nonetheless the West has emboldened Putin by doing sweet FA about Litvinenko, Crimea, Malaysian Flight 17, the Skripals or laundered Russian money in London, Paris and New York.
On topic I rather agree with Mike that these approve/disapprove figures tell you more about the government's standing than a hypothetical vote related poll does. However, I also agree with @HYUFD that at the end of the day we make a choice that all too often seems dismal (if not quite on the Trump/Biden scale, which must be one of the worst choices ever) so best PM is also important.
Mike makes the point these are biased in favour of the incumbent and that is true but it is also why we have had 2 complete changes of government in 42 years. The system favours the incumbent and that does not disappear when elections come around.
At the moment we have an incumbent with a very comfortable majority. I think Boris's personal ratings are now so poor that the Tories would be bordering on reckless letting him lead them into another election. Whether Rishi or whoever can do better, and whether they can be a better choice than SKS will determine the next election. I disagree with @Heathener about it being over already. I think it is all to play for but the government undoubtedly has a tricky hand on the economic front.
Do you now accept that the reason politics can't move on to actually trying to face into these economic crises is because of the liar in Downing Street and the incompetents in cabinet?
No. I think the liar in Downing Street should be removed but the problems will not go away just because that happens. Any government would struggle to cope right now.
This is a genuinely difficult situation. The QE that put the cost of Covid and lockdown on tick is now bleeding into inflation. The world economy has been very seriously disrupted already and is taking a very long time to recover. We face at least 2 potential international crises which could have serious economic effects on us. We have major resource issues in the NHS which are going to take years to overcome. We have a massive trade deficit driven, in part, by our fiscal deficits. Moving a couple of pieces on the chess board does not fix any of this.
And yet until we do get rid of the liar in Downing Street we cannot even begin to properly tackle these problems. Yes they will take a very long time and probably a lot of pain to put right, but that process needs to be planned and executed responsibly and that simply won't happen as long as Johnson is in charge. This is not even about blame. A lot (but by no means all) of the problems we face were beyond his control. But his utter and profound unsuitability for office makes any recovery stillborn.
I think it's down to the public whether Johnson goes. Via polls and local elections Tory MPs must be given the message that unless he's removed a ton of them will be out on their ear at the GE. Unless this comes through loud and clear I don't think they'll act.
I suspect there needs to be a critical mass of personal resentments and/or a critical mass of policy disagreements as well.
With the first and possibly the second requiring many years to build up.
Looking back they played a significant part in the removals of Thatcher and Blair.
I wonder if Wilson would have been forced out before 1979 if he hadn't jumped first.
Yes, don't know about Wilson. He was a master of party management but it was a precarious situation with the tiny majority and the various factions. As for Johnson, I do think it's mainly about the electoral calculus - he doesn't have any ideology really and neither does he inspire much personal loyalty. Most Tory MPs seem to either dislike or just tolerate him.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Dr Henry Kissinger thought the Chinese were the best negotiators he ever encountered.
Their method was to start by asking for ideally what they would like. When you demurred, they skipped straight to the minimum they would accept and didn't budge. The result was that deals were made quickly. You knew exactly what they had in mind and exactly what they would accept as a minimum. The trouble with the more conventional haggling approach was that you would gradually and slowly work towards a settlement but you never knew when you were there; the temptation was then to think you could always squeeze a bit more. This dragged things out and often led to a total breakdown.
I've often applied this in my own minor negotiations. It's surprising how often you get what you ask for, and when I shift to my 'best offer' and it's rejected, walking away works a treat because you really mean it and it shows.
Ok this is bonkers. My Uber driver is a half Croatian onetime futsal pro and he has just said something angry in Tamil and I used google translate and he said “I’d rather suck my dog’s pizzle than read another tedious story by that @kinabalu on the British political website political betting dot com run by Mike smithson from the Bedford Lib Dems”
I actually translated it twice to make sure I hadn’t misheard
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Who the hell seriously haggles in a country as poor as Sri Lanka. I am pretty sure they are charging me twice or thrice the going rate. I just pretend to haggle - so everyone is happy - then agree to the absurd rate. It is still pennies. They are skint
Buried at the bottom of that report is a prediction of five MILLION refugees, if Russia properly invades
Jesus
And they'll all make straight for Primrose Hill, Leon.
Sure you want to get on that plane?
They absolutely will not. The vast majority of refugees end up in our poorest areas, particularly NE England.
NE England NW Yorks West Mid London Wales Scotland East Mid NI East SW SE
That's down to the welfare cap. It caps the amount of support that can be given to any family, including refugees, and the cap includes rent. So if you try to house a refugee family in an area with high rental costs they end up with about £10 per week to spend on everything apart from rent. And even with the PB Let Them Eat Lentils Poverty Cookbook to hand that's a stretch. So they get sent to the areas where the rent is consistent with the welfare cap, ie poor areas. It's not a conspiracy, it's just what happens when an overheated property market meets a miserly and inflexible welfare system.
The benefit cap*
Welfare cap is a limit on government expenditure, rather than on household benefit award.
And this is a function of LHAs, BRMAs etc. As you say, it all depends on whether the family gets housing support through their UC award - I'm not sure whether that is the case for refugees who are often holed up in hotels.
Note also that the BC is different in London, and mostly affects families with at least two children.
Yes sorry, benefit cap. I am not all over the details, but I know the broad parameters of the issue as we are involved in a local group seeking to help house and integrate a refugee family locally. The person in our group who has gone through the details of what is available to the family tells us that realistically it's going to be hard to pay more than £1200-£1300 per month rent, which for a family of four means that it will be pretty much impossible to house them locally (in SE14/SE4/SE15) at market rents. So while we are trying to help house a family in London, it is obvious why most end up in places where rents are far lower. And while I would like the system to be more flexible, then people will ask why refugees are getting subsidised to live in expensive areas at the public expense. There are no easy answers.
The people around Keir Starmer have no political vision other than 'attack and humiliate the left'. That's a tragedy for Labour, but above all, it's a tragedy for the country.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Ok this is bonkers. My Uber driver is a half Croatian onetime futsal pro and he has just said something angry in Tamil and I used google translate and he said “I’d rather suck my dog’s pizzle than read another tedious story by that @kinabalu on the British political website political betting dot com run by Mike smithson from the Bedford Lib Dems”
I actually translated it twice to make sure I hadn’t misheard
I believe he comes here to be entertained by my awesome puns.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
I’m so bored of people constantly dissing China. They’ve built a magnificent expressway from my hotel, the Galle Face, to Colombo airport, enabling me to get there in about fifteen minutes
Surely 3 decades of debt slavery is worth the extra airside drinking time this brings me?
It’s even raised above the hovels so I can look down at their tiny picturesque Stone Age rooms with no running water, a bit like the westway where it goes over them caravans
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Of course Russia is the aggressor.
Nonetheless the West has emboldened Putin by doing sweet FA about Litvinenko, Crimea, Malaysian Flight 17, the Skripals or laundered Russian money in London, Paris and New York.
Does anyone know what the economic effect of oligarch money actually is ?
I imagine that there are various City fund managers, Rolls-Royce dealers, nouveau posho restaurants, footballers agents etc making good money from it.
On the other hand out own poshos must be a bit put out if they're now outbid for Mayfair mansions.
I’m so bored of people constantly dissing China. They’ve built a magnificent expressway from my hotel, the Galle Face, to Colombo airport, enabling me to get there in about fifteen minutes
Surely 3 decades of debt slavery is worth the extra airside drinking time this brings me?
It’s even raised above the hovels so I can look down at their tiny picturesque Stone Age rooms with no running water, a bit like the westway where it goes over them caravans
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Ukraine made a choice to adopt a more western-oriented stance, because it can see clearly that its own self interest lies in democracy, capitalism, rights, and freedoms.
There's nothing wrong at all with being supportive of that choice. Anyone who thinks that our support is in any way provocative has an infantalising view of Ukrainian agency and choice, which is exactly the Russian stance. Russia thinks Ukraine's sovereignty is secondary to Russia's own interests. I can't think why anyone would side with Russia's view. It's an imperialist mindset to think that poor stupid little Ukraine doesn't know what's best for it and needs Mother Russia to help it navigate the confusing grown up world of international politics. It's intensely patronising to the very brink of racist. Ukraine is its own master, and if it wants Russia to run parts of its state it will bloody well ask it. Until such a day, and such a day will never come, what Ukraine's stance is is fuck all to do with Putin. Free peoples everywhere should back each other up in the exercise of their own freedom to choose, and not mirror Putin's patronising justifications for aggressive interference.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Very sinister.
I was thinking how I made a point with dexterity.
Then you'd have to choose sides. Handy as you may be that's a choice.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Who the hell seriously haggles in a country as poor as Sri Lanka. I am pretty sure they are charging me twice or thrice the going rate. I just pretend to haggle - so everyone is happy - then agree to the absurd rate. It is still pennies. They are skint
I once nearly killed an Indian tradesman from shock by simply agreeing to his first price (about 50p) rather than spend time haggling - I was late, tired, thirsty and hot. Strangely in Chang Mai I found haggling in French much easier - they always started at lower prices anyway. And I committed the ultimate folly of heroically haggling down the price of a malachite chess set in Mombassa only to find on checking in a nearby shop the starting price lower than after my twenty minutes of sweaty and I thought triumphant haggling!
Ok this is bonkers. My Uber driver is a half Croatian onetime futsal pro and he has just said something angry in Tamil and I used google translate and he said “I’d rather suck my dog’s pizzle than read another tedious story by that @kinabalu on the British political website political betting dot com run by Mike smithson from the Bedford Lib Dems”
I actually translated it twice to make sure I hadn’t misheard
It was a woke joke - something you ludicrously say isn't possible. Bet you Stewart Lee or Peter Kay could tell it and have the House rocking. I might send it to both of them.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Of course, we don't know what he says to Chinese passengers.
“Fuck off you chiselling bastards”, probably, but in Sinhalese or Tamil so they don’t understand
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
AIUI Chinese tours it’s are not popular in Thailand, largely because they travel in groups and don’t tip. The only ones less popular are Russians, because the men especially are rude and over-assertive
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I’m so bored of people constantly dissing China. They’ve built a magnificent expressway from my hotel, the Galle Face, to Colombo airport, enabling me to get there in about fifteen minutes
Surely 3 decades of debt slavery is worth the extra airside drinking time this brings me?
It’s even raised above the hovels so I can look down at their tiny picturesque Stone Age rooms with no running water, a bit like the westway where it goes over them caravans
Would you accept bondage to Beijing in return for them improving travel links to Heathrow?
Buried at the bottom of that report is a prediction of five MILLION refugees, if Russia properly invades
Jesus
And they'll all make straight for Primrose Hill, Leon.
Sure you want to get on that plane?
They absolutely will not. The vast majority of refugees end up in our poorest areas, particularly NE England.
NE England NW Yorks West Mid London Wales Scotland East Mid NI East SW SE
That's down to the welfare cap. It caps the amount of support that can be given to any family, including refugees, and the cap includes rent. So if you try to house a refugee family in an area with high rental costs they end up with about £10 per week to spend on everything apart from rent. And even with the PB Let Them Eat Lentils Poverty Cookbook to hand that's a stretch. So they get sent to the areas where the rent is consistent with the welfare cap, ie poor areas. It's not a conspiracy, it's just what happens when an overheated property market meets a miserly and inflexible welfare system.
The benefit cap*
Welfare cap is a limit on government expenditure, rather than on household benefit award.
And this is a function of LHAs, BRMAs etc. As you say, it all depends on whether the family gets housing support through their UC award - I'm not sure whether that is the case for refugees who are often holed up in hotels.
Note also that the BC is different in London, and mostly affects families with at least two children.
Yes sorry, benefit cap. I am not all over the details, but I know the broad parameters of the issue as we are involved in a local group seeking to help house and integrate a refugee family locally. The person in our group who has gone through the details of what is available to the family tells us that realistically it's going to be hard to pay more than £1200-£1300 per month rent, which for a family of four means that it will be pretty much impossible to house them locally (in SE14/SE4/SE15) at market rents. So while we are trying to help house a family in London, it is obvious why most end up in places where rents are far lower. And while I would like the system to be more flexible, then people will ask why refugees are getting subsidised to live in expensive areas at the public expense. There are no easy answers.
In the end, almost every social problem comes back to stupid house prices in London / SE England.
And any party that fixes those will be out of power for a generation.
In all seriousness - my Uber driver has just started ranting - yes - about China. Apparently they built this gleaming toll road expressway from Colombo to the airport BUT the deal is for fifty years China takes 80% of the tolls and the desperately poor Sri Lankan government gets 20%
No idea if this is remotely true but he certainly believes it
China is a new global empire and it is stoking massive resentment around the world. I heard similar in Ethiopia about 4 years ago
I guess all empires breed these feelings but we may see a global reaction at some point. Debt servitude is not fun
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Dr Henry Kissinger thought the Chinese were the best negotiators he ever encountered.
Their method was to start by asking for ideally what they would like. When you demurred, they skipped straight to the minimum they would accept and didn't budge. The result was that deals were made quickly. You knew exactly what they had in mind and exactly what they would accept as a minimum. The trouble with the more conventional haggling approach was that you would gradually and slowly work towards a settlement but you never knew when you were there; the temptation was then to think you could always squeeze a bit more. This dragged things out and often led to a total breakdown.
I've often applied this in my own minor negotiations. It's surprising how often you get what you ask for, and when I shift to my 'best offer' and it's rejected, walking away works a treat because you really mean it and it shows.
Yes, I agree. People often make a meal of it and then what happens is it becomes about the process not the outcome. Property is very prone to this imo.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
The Ambassador would be unlikely to say that Russia would back down in the face of sanctions.
Putin is acting like a bully in this case. We are not the one's poking him.
He is, and that needs to be very clearly seen as the main issue. But we are poking as well, and some of it is disingenuous and aimed at domestic headlines. Reserving the option to move missiles up to the Russian border (why?), insisting that we might want to bring a former part of the country into NATO (when we clearly are not going to), and issuing predictions of invasion every week for months are all unhelpful, and many patriotic Ukrainians are fed up with it (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/feb/13/ukrainians-in-kyiv-shrug-off-threat-of-russian-invasion).
This isn't to excuse Putin's sabre-rattling at all, and if it turns out to be worse than sabre-rattling, that will apply triply. But we have made the mistake many times of whipping up local fervour in a small country and then letting them down, and if we quietly reinforced Ukraine and made Nordstream completely and permanently dependent on no invasion, that would probably be more effective than the noisy public stuff.
Sorry Nick, but that's bullshit. Pure and absolute bullshit. I feel bad using such language against you, but it needs saying.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,: *) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection. *) The right to self-determination. *) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Actually, I agree that we should support Ukraine against Russia if the latter invades. However, our support should be as a supplier, facilitator, trainer, etc., and should under no circumstances involve British military personnel or ordnance in the conflict.
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I'm quite persuaded by the "second yellow card" approach to this.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Quite apart from the wisdom of that approach, who is paying for these bombs? British taxpayers who can't heat their homes?
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
I'm sure it would be a messy disaster.
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
In Boris Johnson's case it would suit him if Russia invades. Remember: he will throw anyone or anything or any country under the bus if it helps save his skin. If you don't like this, you don't know Boris Johnson.
No, the right way to respond to a bear poking around in your yard is to shoot it with a tranquilliser, tag it, and haul it back off into the woods where it belongs.
Then, if it comes back, shoot it for real.
Thank god you are nowhere near our foreign policy decision making and actions
You don't think countries should defend themselves, and defend each other collectively, from aggression?
The trouble with your analogy is it is unclear as to exactly whose yard the bear is poking around in.
The sovereign state that is Ukraine. If Ukraine wants the bear there, then knock on, why should we care? But they don't. So we should help if asked.
Why should we help? Why more so than shitty stuff happening all over the world, including (somewhat topically) in countries that used to be our colonies, where it could be argued that we have a measure of responsibility for the current state of affairs?
Self interest. The crushing of a flowering democracy rolls the border of authoritarianism a few hundred miles closer to our own land. Also: a plausible scenario of a Russian invasion of Ukraine is a wave of refugees spreading westwards. That's a messy problem to sort out and could be expensive. Western countries have a tendency to turn on one another when such things happen, because of ideological differences between right and left. Rather than go through all that again, we could head the problem off at the pass. I'm sure the potential refugees would also be grateful about being able to stay put and life their lives as they prefer. Also solidarity. We'd want others to help protect our freedoms if we were similarly threatened. It's good practice to treat others as you'd want to be treated.
Linking the last two points, I'm wondering where the Poland fits into this with the possibility of refugees. Remember the Law and Justice Party's PiS-poor attitude to Poland doing its fair share during the Mediterranean migrant crisis? Well, the boot's potentially on the other foot now. If they're the ones about to receive a wave of refugees, I wonder whether there aren't a few in Poland who are now thinking twice about the idea of solidarity and everyone pulling together.
Seeing as it’s 'relaxed Sunday' I’ve done another ‘woke joke’ for the Board. My last one was bad and got rightly slagged but I think this one is better. It also has the benefit of being a 100% true story. Apols for length and please skip if not in the mood.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The tiny packs of screwdrivers which are sometimes found in Christmas crackers can be very useful for repairs to glasses.
Yes, I'd have given my right arm for one of them at the time. But you don't think to carry one around, do you?
Are you left handed?
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Very sinister.
I was thinking how I made a point with dexterity.
Then you'd have to choose sides. Handy as you may be that's a choice.
Ironically, that's not true as I am in fact ambidextrous.
For some reason, taxi-driver-anecdotes get a bad press on here. But anyway, this is another
Just got a tuk-tuk to Slave Island to buy some sleepers before my flight home (Sri Lanka, it seems, being one of the last places you can buy them OTC if you choose your pharmacy correctly. - go for ones near stations, a bit grubby, down a side street, but not totally derelict)
The tuk tuk driver, on discovering I am British, said “All the time we ask ourselves, why did you British go? Why did the British leave? Everything was better with the British, ever since you left it has been corruption corruption and war. And now the Chinese own us”
This went on for a few minutes. And it is not the first time I have encountered this attitude in Sri Lanka, it is widely held
Of course there are Russians who feel nostalgic for Stalin, and East Germans who pine for Marxism, but it is still quite striking
I wonder if Sri Lanka had the BEST experience of British imperialism? I cannot think of many colonies where British rule was so benign, and where it was so clearly superior to what came before and after
Tasmania, it ain’t
Bajaj driver in knowing how to maximise tip shocker.
Gets home later and tells the wife -
"You'll never guess who I had in the back of the tuk today?" "A British tourist with naive and sentimental views about the Empire?" "Yep. Him." "So you did the usual then, did you babe?" "I did. Laid it on very thick." "Ha ha ha ... and?" "Bingo!" "Ha, love you babe." "Love you too."
When it's just me and my wife getting a Bajaj in Sri Lanka our usual trick is for me to hide while my wife flags one down and agrees a price. Then I appear and they shake their head ruefully. Being British Sri Lankan with ropey Sinhala my wife gets charged about double the going rate, but with me in tow it's more like double that again. It's all done in good humour though.
No, exactly, that's not a 'ripped off' feeling, is it. I'm a poor barterer myself. I like to either pay what's on the label or do the other extreme - come winging straight in with a 'best and final'. With small things I usually do the first and with big things the second.
Who the hell seriously haggles in a country as poor as Sri Lanka. I am pretty sure they are charging me twice or thrice the going rate. I just pretend to haggle - so everyone is happy - then agree to the absurd rate. It is still pennies. They are skint
I once nearly killed an Indian tradesman from shock by simply agreeing to his first price (about 50p) rather than spend time haggling - I was late, tired, thirsty and hot. Strangely in Chang Mai I found haggling in French much easier - they always started at lower prices anyway. And I committed the ultimate folly of heroically haggling down the price of a malachite chess set in Mombassa only to find on checking in a nearby shop the starting price lower than after my twenty minutes of sweaty and I thought triumphant haggling!
When doing any serious shopping in Thailand we always take our Thai daughter-in-law to help with the bargaining. Next time we go though, I expect it will be one of the granddaughters!
In all seriousness - my Uber driver has just started ranting - yes - about China. Apparently they built this gleaming toll road expressway from Colombo to the airport BUT the deal is for fifty years China takes 80% of the tolls and the desperately poor Sri Lankan government gets 20%
No idea if this is remotely true but he certainly believes it
China is a new global empire and it is stoking massive resentment around the world. I heard similar in Ethiopia about 4 years ago
I guess all empires breed these feelings but we may see a global reaction at some point. Debt servitude is not fun
China is working on a far tighter plan than the British ever did,
In all seriousness - my Uber driver has just started ranting - yes - about China. Apparently they built this gleaming toll road expressway from Colombo to the airport BUT the deal is for fifty years China takes 80% of the tolls and the desperately poor Sri Lankan government gets 20%
No idea if this is remotely true but he certainly believes it
China is a new global empire and it is stoking massive resentment around the world. I heard similar in Ethiopia about 4 years ago
I guess all empires breed these feelings but we may see a global reaction at some point. Debt servitude is not fun
I guess one question is: what do the Chinese do if a government decides to court popularity by unilaterally renegotiating one of these deals?
We know that the reaction of the British Empire was to send the Navy in to enforce commercial deals - as recently as 1956 I believe - and people say the same about the Americans. Will the Chinese send a punitive expedition to a country that reneges on debt repayments?
It will be the next logical step in establishing their global power - disciplining those who step out of line.
Comments
The west was caught napping, and there was a growing belief that the US wasn’t going to respond. I think a fairly noisy response was probably necessary.
Ukraine is not a small country, and they will fight whether or not we help them. Our assistance probably makes an invasion less, not more likely.
The problem is with expenditure. And even then, Scotland's deficit has only diverged from the rest of the UK's since about 2012 - and that gap continued to grow pre-Covid.
2010 the Tories came in. In 2011 we elected a majority SNP government. And held a referendum in 2014. It's all very arguable whose fault it is.
In the case of Covid, the first year of the pandemic would have been almost identical under Labour. The second year would have been far, far worse.
And then Starmer would have slowed down vaccination of oldies in favour of school staff - against scientific advice:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-55828160
What’s certain is that the discharge policy was a clear national instruction to discharge patient into care homes irrespective of their infection status, as I documented here at the time.
Anti-Chinese sentiment here is widespread and fervent. The Sri Lankans feel their corrupt government has basically sold the whole country into debt bondage to China
I have no idea how much of this is true, but I have heard this opinion everywhere
“Sri Lankans who once embraced Chinese investment are now wary of Chinese domination”
That’s a headline BEFORE Covid fucked the economy
https://www.latimes.com/world/asia/la-fg-sri-lanka-port-2017-story.html
Unionists just cannot accept facts, they prefer the too wee too poor mince every time.
PS: You are turning into Carlotta.
https://twitter.com/FinancialTimes/status/1492847946081226756
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jan/10/sri-lanka-appeals-to-china-to-ease-debt-burden-amid-economic-crisis
… China accounted for about 10% of Sri Lanka’s $35bn foreign debt to April 2021, government data shows. Officials said China’s total lending could be much higher when taking into account loans to state-owned enterprises and the central bank.
Sri Lanka has borrowed heavily from China for infrastructure, some of which ended up as white elephants. Unable to repay a $1.4bn loan for a port construction in southern Sri Lanka, Colombo was forced to lease the facility to a Chinese company for 99 years in 2017.…
Even if there had been zero swing from Labour to LD from 2017 to 2019 at all amongst Remainers who disliked Corbyn
The main cause of the growth in the gap is the reducing contribution of the North Sea. If you go back far enough Scotland was paying more than its fair share of the tax. But what we are seeing now is the reality that an independent Scotland would face and it would be tough. Not third world poverty or anything, but seriously tougher than we have right now.
For me, the only question is how do we reverse this dependence on England whether we remain a part of the UK or go independent? How do we create an economy that can pay for the high public spending we think we need or deserve? It is the same issue of levelling up that Gove is wrestling with in the north of England and it is not a simple problem. Sadly, the SNP have no interest in answering that question.
So in the changing room after my swim yesterday a screw came off my glasses and the left lens dropped out. It didn’t smash, thankfully, but the screw is miniscule and it wasn’t apparent where it’d had gone. An emergency because I can’t drive home safely with only one lens in, furthermore these are my favourite specs, the lennon photochromics I only got recently.
What the hell to do? Well I first of all got down on all fours and systematically patted around the floor until I located the screw. People were watching but I managed to block them out and concentrate. Took about 10 minutes, a pretty long 10 minutes given the circumstances. Anyway, got it, and then came the more difficult task. Resting the glasses in my lap I had to slot the lens into precisely the correct position and, keeping it there, somehow insert this tiny little screw into where it’s meant to go, and then, still balancing everything just so, tighten it up using my nail - 3 separate manoeuvres, all incredibly fiddly and all requiring great focus and dexterity. Not made easier by the fact I’d cut my nails on Thursday.
Again and again I’d get close but fail. I’d have the lens in but not the screw. Or the screw would go in and the lens would pop out. Or, most tantalizing scenario of all, lens and screw both perfectly in but my free finger lodged at an angle that didn’t allow me to do any tightening. Time passed, people came and went, and still I sat there, hunched up, intent on fixing these glasses, needing to fix them, simply not taking no for an answer. At one point, would you believe, the screw escaped and, almost weeping with frustration, I had to repeat the crawling around on the floor performance.
Finally finally it all clicked. Best part of an hour but we’re there. Lens in, screw in, screw tightened to the max, glasses sorted and back on face, able to get dressed and leave. And here’s the point and why I’m relating this in such excruciating detail - what I noticed as I was driving home is I felt a million dollars. Why? Because I’d done something of genuine merit, something I knew most people wouldn’t have accomplished because they’d have lost their rag with it and given up. It’s been years since I’d had that feeling and it brought home to me how beneficial it is to a person, doing things which stretch them. Certainly I was now resolved to carry on in this vein. There’d be no sliding back into my old comfort zone. It was just a matter of what the next challenge would be.
Fortunately I didn’t have to wait long to find one. My wife, openly impressed after listening to my tale, had the idea for it herself. “Why don’t you,” she said, “start cleaning the bathroom instead of always expecting me to do it?”
The people around Keir Starmer have no political vision other than 'attack and humiliate the left'. That's a tragedy for Labour, but above all, it's a tragedy for the country.
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1492849276552110083
It's a reasonable assumption but it doesn't matter anyway because, as Stodge indicated, they were not the Government. You don't excuse Chamberlain's policy of Appeasement on the grounds that the opposition would have done likewise, if not more so. You don't excuse Blair's Iraq policy because the opposition Party was even more gung-ho than his own.
You judge the Government of its day on its merits.
Jesus
If I were the SNP I'd push wind really, really hard. Effective during this period of high energy costs.
- Announce levy on all Scottish electricity that is exported to RUK/ROW.
- Kick up a fuss when Whitehall blocks it
- Announce open season for offshore wind in Scotland, sign agreements with EU(Germany) for export with Scots levy if independent
- Show how this makes Scotland incredibly rich (doesn't have to be strictly accurate)
- Section 30. Force denial, create lots of drama
GERMANY'S VICE CHANCELLOR HABECK SAYS WE MAY BE ON THE VERGE OF WAR IN EUROPE - RTL/NTV
https://twitter.com/DeItaone/status/1492849124160729089
Sure you want to get on that plane?
It's more than just "a reasonable assumption", too. It's crystal clear from everything that Labour spokespeople said that they would have implemented every disastrous restriction the government did, and many more that the government didn't.
Bit of a shame for the Ukraine though
NE England
NW
Yorks
West Mid
London
Wales
Scotland
East Mid
NI
East
SW
SE
https://www.reddit.com/r/ukraine/comments/sqozyc/to_ukrainian_citizens/
Let us hope it is still, at this late stage, a kind of fever dream. I feel the Normalcy Bias rising inside, like reflux
I had an old colonial Kenyan teacher at Grammar School. She was quite keen to promote your narrative, but not the alternative.
I dined at the Nairobi Club in 1988. Old colonial attitudes were certainly alive and well despite over 20 years of independence.
Putin has invaded Ukraine twice - the first time capturing very valuable territory, and the second with his surrogates getting bogged down. Saying we are 'poking' them when they have this track record, and he has moved massive numbers of troops to the border, is ridiculous.
We have zero fault in this. The Russian supporters (or anti-western) people would see *anything* we said as 'poking'.
As for why we should support Ukraine,:
*) They got rid of their nukes in return international agreement for their protection.
*) The right to self-determination.
*) The Holodmor. Russia's behaviour wrt Ukraine has never been good (indeed, the same goes for other countries against Ukraine as well.)
Russia is the aggressor here. Save your ire for them.
Welfare cap is a limit on government expenditure, rather than on household benefit award.
And this is a function of LHAs, BRMAs etc. As you say, it all depends on whether the family gets housing support through their UC award - I'm not sure whether that is the case for refugees who are often holed up in hotels.
Note also that the BC is different in London, and mostly affects families with at least two children.
Good job Mrs. P. is such a hoarder stocker-up of tins of beans etc.
Nonetheless the West has emboldened Putin by doing sweet FA about Litvinenko, Crimea, Malaysian Flight 17, the Skripals or laundered Russian money in London, Paris and New York.
Their method was to start by asking for ideally what they would like. When you demurred, they skipped straight to the minimum they would accept and didn't budge. The result was that deals were made quickly. You knew exactly what they had in mind and exactly what they would accept as a minimum. The trouble with the more conventional haggling approach was that you would gradually and slowly work towards a settlement but you never knew when you were there; the temptation was then to think you could always squeeze a bit more. This dragged things out and often led to a total breakdown.
I've often applied this in my own minor negotiations. It's surprising how often you get what you ask for, and when I shift to my 'best offer' and it's rejected, walking away works a treat because you really mean it and it shows.
(1.) If we won’t pay it, will you?
(2.) If we will pay it, what will you give us?
The UK Government can only answer: *no* and *nothing*.
Where does that leave the SNP policy?
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1492458567726735364
I actually translated it twice to make sure I hadn’t misheard
Every time there's a whiff of gunpowder in the air, the, the 'up boys and at 'em' tendency takes over the more suggestible posters on PB - one can only imagine how they'd feel if they had to do more than cheer on our brave boys from behind a keyboard in the Home Counties.
I still can't quite get over that Russia shot down a passenger jet and smeared a fucking nerve agent all over Salisbury and we still have people going with "poking the bear". It's telling that we give Putin more rope than poor Martinelli.
Impose a no-fly zone over Ukraine and bomb anything that crosses the border - claim they are Russian backed "insurgents".
Tim is reassured that an independent Scotland will have a £3 billion surplus to pay “other benefits”.
Those “other benefits” currently cost £13 billion.
Bonus point for understanding that the UK Government won’t pay, but really… this is just phenomenally stupid.
https://twitter.com/staylorish/status/1491127190838444034
Because if not, giving up your right arm for a screwdriver would not have got you noticeably further forward.
Surely 3 decades of debt slavery is worth the extra airside drinking time this brings me?
It’s even raised above the hovels so I can look down at their tiny picturesque Stone Age rooms with no running water, a bit like the westway where it goes over them caravans
I imagine that there are various City fund managers, Rolls-Royce dealers, nouveau posho restaurants, footballers agents etc making good money from it.
On the other hand out own poshos must be a bit put out if they're now outbid for Mayfair mansions.
There's nothing wrong at all with being supportive of that choice. Anyone who thinks that our support is in any way provocative has an infantalising view of Ukrainian agency and choice, which is exactly the Russian stance. Russia thinks Ukraine's sovereignty is secondary to Russia's own interests.
I can't think why anyone would side with Russia's view. It's an imperialist mindset to think that poor stupid little Ukraine doesn't know what's best for it and needs Mother Russia to help it navigate the confusing grown up world of international politics. It's intensely patronising to the very brink of racist.
Ukraine is its own master, and if it wants Russia to run parts of its state it will bloody well ask it. Until such a day, and such a day will never come, what Ukraine's stance is is fuck all to do with Putin. Free peoples everywhere should back each other up in the exercise of their own freedom to choose, and not mirror Putin's patronising justifications for aggressive interference.
I am a right wing Tory and I am by no means immune to a desire to see British prestige upheld abroad, but I recognise that to be a serious player in world affairs you need a solid foundation of wealth that can fund a solid military, and that military still needs to be used wisely, sparingly, and judiciously, when the endgame is clear and victory resulting in lasting peace is achievable. Above all, Britain's own interests must come first second and third. None of that is evident in our handling of this affair. Instead we have Truss doing her twat in a hat act, when all she's doing anyway is repeating (not very professionally it seems) what the Americans want us to.
And any party that fixes those will be out of power for a generation.
So we carry on with the rest of this mess.
No idea if this is remotely true but he certainly believes it
China is a new global empire and it is stoking massive resentment around the world. I heard similar in Ethiopia about 4 years ago
I guess all empires breed these feelings but we may see a global reaction at some point. Debt servitude is not fun
But what is the alternative? What are the armed forces for? What are British interests?
I'd argue it's important that a failing Russia isn't allowed to undermine the economies and democracies of a fast growing and increasingly liberal eastern Europe.
We already pay for all the fixed costs of aircraft, pilot training, a stock of weapons.
Also solidarity. We'd want others to help protect our freedoms if we were similarly threatened. It's good practice to treat others as you'd want to be treated.
Linking the last two points, I'm wondering where the Poland fits into this with the possibility of refugees. Remember the Law and Justice Party's PiS-poor attitude to Poland doing its fair share during the Mediterranean migrant crisis? Well, the boot's potentially on the other foot now. If they're the ones about to receive a wave of refugees, I wonder whether there aren't a few in Poland who are now thinking twice about the idea of solidarity and everyone pulling together.
Next time we go though, I expect it will be one of the granddaughters!
Such is life!
We know that the reaction of the British Empire was to send the Navy in to enforce commercial deals - as recently as 1956 I believe - and people say the same about the Americans. Will the Chinese send a punitive expedition to a country that reneges on debt repayments?
It will be the next logical step in establishing their global power - disciplining those who step out of line.