Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

The Tories go on the offensive in T&H – politicalbetting.com

123468

Comments

  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
    Many people seem to be predicting this. But I just don't see how it happens. I don't expect things to get any better for Boris in terms of news - two by-election losses and a further drip drip of negative stories - but I don't see how any of that now shifts him until at best this time next year.
    You can't rule out a black swan, of course. You can practically depend on one. But no doubt he'll ride that out as well.
  • StillWatersStillWaters Posts: 2,405

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    Do you have some evidence for that or is it something you have made up because you disagree with him?

    You know, a lie.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,047
    edited June 7

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    I suspect it isn't actually social conscience but standard price discrimination.

    If you can, you direct discounts at those who are most price sensitive. Coupons have always been one way to do that (although they also serve other purposes like promoting an individual product). Coupon clippers tend to be more price conscious - by definition, those who don't notice price all that much don't bother. So you give a discount to those who may otherwise not buy, without giving a blanket discount across the board, including those who'd buy from you anyway.

    So I would suspect Iceland found older customers disproportionally defecting to Lidl etc, so offered a targeted discount for commercial rather than social reasons (albeit it can be branded as a nice gesture).

    As you say, there's no rational reason to object. If you're under 60, then either the price/quality equation at Iceland means you choose it, or you prefer somewhere else. That they give targeted discounts really isn't the point.

    And age-related discounts are commonplace for OAPs and students in lots of contexts - why is it suddenly objectionable in a supermarket but not in a cinema or football ground or train? Makes no sense as you say.
  • OmniumOmnium Posts: 8,180
    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
    It's impossible to reply when there's a family thing suggested.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
    Yes, that’s what I am beginning to suspect. I recently read an amazing, harrrowing history of the Armenian genocide. I had no idea the Armenian realm stretched so far into Anatolia and Syria (before the killings)
  • PJHPJH Posts: 205
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
    Agreed.

    I called it very wrong.
    Fair play, Sir, fair play
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    I suspect it isn't actually social conscience but standard price discrimination.

    If you can, you direct discounts at those who are most price sensitive. Coupons have always been one way to do that (although they also serve other purposes like promoting an individual product). Coupon clippers tend to be more price conscious - by definition, those who don't notice price all that much don't bother. So you give a discount to those who may otherwise not bother, without giving a blanket discount across the board.

    So I would suspect Iceland found older customers disproportionally defecting to Lidl etc, so offered a targeted discount for commercial rather than social reasons (albeit it can be branded as a nice gesture).

    As you say, there's no rational reason to object. If you're under 60, then either the price/quality equation at Iceland means you choose it, or you prefer somewhere else. That they give targeted discounts really isn't the point.

    And age-related discounts are commonplace for OAPs and students in lots of contexts - why is it suddenly objectionable in a supermarket but not in a cinema or football ground or train? Makes no sense as you say.
    Yep I do actually agree with you. This is, to some extent, a form of loss leading. What they lose on the 10% discount they make up on the extra footfall. I really don't see the point in getting annoyed about it.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362

    Leon said:

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
    It was bloody obvious by last week that there would be a VONC.

    I assumed he would win it reasonably well (ie less than 100 against) but when I saw the Norman letter I knew he was fucked even I as understood rationally that an actual loss was surely too high a barrier for the rebels.
    Do you still think he's fucked? In what sort of timescale?

    Plenty of people seem to think he'll be gone, but I can't see what forces it.
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,035
    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    That's awful. Can I have the address, though?
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    They should ask for their money back!*

    *I very much doubt he is..
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
    Many people seem to be predicting this. But I just don't see how it happens. I don't expect things to get any better for Boris in terms of news - two by-election losses and a further drip drip of negative stories - but I don't see how any of that now shifts him until at best this time next year.
    You can't rule out a black swan, of course. You can practically depend on one. But no doubt he'll ride that out as well.
    I agree with this a bit.

    I think Phase 1 of the ouster is effectively over. There will be further bad news (ie the by-elections and a likely censuring) but the sting is now drawn from Partygate.

    Phase 1 was characterised by the disorganisation of the rebellion, which is widespread but has not coalesced behind any answer to “what next?”

    Phase 2 will be based on Boris’s inability to deliver policy and will take place once a successor is widely recognised. I don’t know when it will happen.
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
    Yes, that’s what I am beginning to suspect. I recently read an amazing, harrrowing history of the Armenian genocide. I had no idea the Armenian realm stretched so far into Anatolia and Syria (before the killings)
    Try a trip to Baku in Azerbaijan. A huge amount of history including a British Military cemetery from the Dunsterforce Expedition in 1918.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
  • Stark_DawningStark_Dawning Posts: 8,095
    Leon said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Bravo. You’ve actually made me think about this in a new way. Before, I would generally have thought (if I thought about it at all) Oh, that’s nice, giving old people a hand - but you’re quite right, it’s yet another way of shifting money to the old

    Fuck the old. Help the young
    An idea for Boris's relaunch - bring back that bursary for eighteen year olds that Gordon Brown introduced and Cameron scrapped. He could describe it as a kind of inter-generational levelling up. Would go down well with the British youth, who haven't been able to have the usual drink/drug/sex of one's later teens because of Covid.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    By whom?

    If you're suggesting he's paid by the Conservative Party, I really don't think this is the sort of voice they want to portray. I have nothing against HYUFD - we are here for a conversation, after all, and it is welcome to hear people say what they think, and we delude ourselves if we think our views have any weight bar those of participants in a friendly (or aggressive, in some cases) chat - but to paraphrase 'we won so we can do what we like' isn't really a party political broadcast for the Conservative Party
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 26,932
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
    Because this works better as both a business model and for advertising purposes for them. It is a tried and tested method which works.

    I suppose you will be moaning that loss leading on milk is discriminating against the lactose intolerant.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    I do like the PB belief that all pensioners are Evul Rich, who sit on thrones of the gold plated skulls of The Poor.

    There are many who are relying on the state pension, which isn't funding a billionaires lifestyle.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,047
    Leon said:

    I predicted 155 against.
    I think someone on here got closer and suggested 145?

    The worst prediction was arguably that of @rcs1000

    (Sorry Robert)

    On the day Brady called the VONC he said there was at least a 15% chance of there being “No VONC this year” despite numerous journalists and politicians - enough to be entirely convincing - saying there was gonna be a VONC. Meaning the chances of no VONC were sub 1%
    In fairness to Robert, he makes testable predictions.

    A lot of posters on here say things that are can't really be tested ("I think Johnson will come under a lot of pressure and will do well to avoid a VONC" is never really provably wrong, for instance) or that are so far in advance that it's all forgotten about by the time it comes to it. It's the classic columnist trick - you avoid being provably wrong, or at least ensure nobody readily remembers your duff calls.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
    Many people seem to be predicting this. But I just don't see how it happens. I don't expect things to get any better for Boris in terms of news - two by-election losses and a further drip drip of negative stories - but I don't see how any of that now shifts him until at best this time next year.
    You can't rule out a black swan, of course. You can practically depend on one. But no doubt he'll ride that out as well.
    I guess the idea is that the psychological pressure will become so intense that any normal human would yield. Like, if he loses both by elections and three ministers resign and there is another VONC and everything is paralysed as he squats in Number 10…

    But as you say he is not normal. And yet he is not inhuman either
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,035
    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    If it were illegal to discriminate on age, the Young (16-25) Persons Railcard would be a goner too.
  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362

    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    I do like the PB belief that all pensioners are Evul Rich, who sit on thrones of the gold plated skulls of The Poor.

    There are many who are relying on the state pension, which isn't funding a billionaires lifestyle.
    But this is a discount applied to the whole cohort, which - I think? - is the richest in society.
    There are many people in Surrey who are just scraping by.
    But in general, people in Surrey are a lot better off than the rest of us. And it would be odd to offer a discount applicable only to people from Surrey.

    I don't mind, and I can see the reasons - it's just targeted marketing. But it's clearly not social conscience: if it was, you'd target it at the poorest cohort rather than the richest.
  • PJHPJH Posts: 205

    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    I do like the PB belief that all pensioners are Evul Rich, who sit on thrones of the gold plated skulls of The Poor.

    There are many who are relying on the state pension, which isn't funding a billionaires lifestyle.
    I wasn't making a judgment - I was just questioning its legality. And also it isn't targeted at people whose income is limited to the State Pension but 'Over 60s'
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    If it were illegal to discriminate on age, the Young (16-25) Persons Railcard would be a goner too.
    Not to mention the different minimum wage.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    biggles said:

    So what’s the next plot twist? Starmer and Rayner fined before the end of the week? Another Boris investigation into a previously unknown event?

    I think Starmer & Rayner will at least get a telling off from the police and will have to apologise.
    Lets hope so. In fact, a 'no fine but only because we arent issuing retrospectively' would lead to hilarious new definitions of integrity as they try and worm their way out of it and cling on.
    He genuinely doesn't think he was also taking the piss having curry and beer for 15/20/30/however many were there on the agenda for the day or even worse that being a slightly less profligate shit (that we know of) excuses it.
    'We were working, nom nom nom slurp, pass us one of the 40 poppadoms Angie'
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941
    Cookie said:

    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?
    I do like the PB belief that all pensioners are Evul Rich, who sit on thrones of the gold plated skulls of The Poor.

    There are many who are relying on the state pension, which isn't funding a billionaires lifestyle.
    But this is a discount applied to the whole cohort, which - I think? - is the richest in society.
    There are many people in Surrey who are just scraping by.
    But in general, people in Surrey are a lot better off than the rest of us. And it would be odd to offer a discount applicable only to people from Surrey.

    I don't mind, and I can see the reasons - it's just targeted marketing. But it's clearly not social conscience: if it was, you'd target it at the poorest cohort rather than the richest.
    There is a vary considerable range within said "cohort".

    Part of it is the perception that pensioners are on a fixed income. Other people are assumed to have the ability increase earnings.
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044
    Russia plans to use the death penalty against a British fighter Aiden Aslin who was captured in Ukraine

    Relations with Britain and Russia, which are already at historic lows, are set to plunge further


    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1534152942114197504
  • algarkirkalgarkirk Posts: 6,112
    PJH said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    This is a long-established practice - e.g. OAPs haircuts. However, with gradual and recent changes to equality legislation isn't it now illegal to discriminate based on age? I hadn't thought of this before. As you say, you couldn't charge a discount for white people, which is no more arbitrary or unfair. Time for a legal challenge?

    If the object is to spread demand more evenly then shouldn't it just be offered as a discount between 10-4 on Tuesdays?

    In any profit seeking activity (not state managed/subsidised) discounts are a commercial decision. If it can be presented as decency or the milk of human kindness that's fine.

    Beware invoking discrimination. Young people/students (including wealthy trustafarians) get discounts too. Should babies pay full fare on trains?

  • CookieCookie Posts: 7,362
    Leon said:

    Cookie said:

    Leon said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    For any who didn’t read the link posted up thread:

    A professor nicknamed the “Mystic Meg of political science” after accurately predicting the result of the confidence vote in Boris Johnson has forecast the prime minister will be out within six months.

    Prof Jon Tonge , who teaches British politics at the University of Liverpool, is kicking himself for not betting on a contest he so accurately forecast.


    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/jun/07/professor-dubbed-mystic-meg-of-politics-says-boris-johnson-will-be-out-by-autumn

    He bets on politics apparently, I wonder if he is on here. Kudos to him on his prediction if so!
    Not so impressive: Alastair Meeks. Who predicted a Boris loss by 15-20

    His reputation takes a dent
    No it doesn't.
    For me, it does. And I like his Medium articles

    We had a family WhatsApp prediction game. I predicted a very narrow Boris defeat (like Meeks). Tsk

    My sister came closest. “A fairly narrow Boris win”. She has also predicted Boris will be gone within a few weeks
    Many people seem to be predicting this. But I just don't see how it happens. I don't expect things to get any better for Boris in terms of news - two by-election losses and a further drip drip of negative stories - but I don't see how any of that now shifts him until at best this time next year.
    You can't rule out a black swan, of course. You can practically depend on one. But no doubt he'll ride that out as well.
    I guess the idea is that the psychological pressure will become so intense that any normal human would yield. Like, if he loses both by elections and three ministers resign and there is another VONC and everything is paralysed as he squats in Number 10…

    But as you say he is not normal. And yet he is not inhuman either
    Yes, absolutely.
    We can't judge politicians - particularly Prime Ministers - by our own standards. They clearly want to be PM far, far more than a normal person would, so what would be intolerably miserable for us would still be comfortably balanced by the feeling of 'hooray, I'm Prime Minister!'. But as you say, he is human. We all have our limits.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    Your dad's in a small minority.
    Not that small a minority. Wasn't there a report recently that one-in-six of the retired owned a second property? My Dad isn't even in that group.

    There are lots of people under the age of 60 who will be struggling a lot more than lots of those aged over 60. It's a really bad way to identify those who need more help.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
    Yes, that’s what I am beginning to suspect. I recently read an amazing, harrrowing history of the Armenian genocide. I had no idea the Armenian realm stretched so far into Anatolia and Syria (before the killings)
    Try a trip to Baku in Azerbaijan. A huge amount of history including a British Military cemetery from the Dunsterforce Expedition in 1918.

    i went to Baku in 1990s. It was indeed amazing. But I now addicted to new things again. Georgia is new, to me, and it is totally brilliant

    For its tiny size, it really is one of the great destinations of the world
  • AnabobazinaAnabobazina Posts: 14,309
    kyf_100 said:

    PJH said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PJH said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
    Or have an office with a door you can shut when you're on a call. Just like the old days.
    Very old days. Last (and only) time I had one of those was in 1991.
    2016 for me. Then I was moved to an office with no door (considered bringing my own chocolate fireguard as substitute) before finally being tipped into the football field of desks, with noise cancelling headphones and all the other silent drones.

    I got a lot more work done when I had a degree of privacy, the ability to be on calls with people without the whole office hearing, the ability to vent or let off steam if a meeting didn't go well. The ability to gossip, or to console a friend who was having a bad day and wanted to talk.

    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    Modern offices resemble panopticon prisons designed for surveillance, more than places where people can interact with each other and collaborate together.

    Excellent post: almost certainly the best all-rounder would be a set-up as you describe – your own office – that is close to, but not at, home.

    Open plan was a monumentally stupid idea takes the worst aspects of WFH and WFO, and combines them.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    Nice of the RMT not to go on strike during Wimbledon...

    https://www.theguardian.com/business/2022/jun/07/rail-workers-to-stage-three-day-strike-in-june-over-possible-job-losses

    The Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union has told members to prepare for strikes on 21, 23 and 25 June, after a ballot of 40,000 members last month saw staff at Network Rail and 14 train operating companies vote overwhelmingly for full-scale industrial action.
  • LostPasswordLostPassword Posts: 9,513

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    This is just the politics of envy.
    It's not envy. It's anger. It's taking the effing piss.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
    Yes, that’s what I am beginning to suspect. I recently read an amazing, harrrowing history of the Armenian genocide. I had no idea the Armenian realm stretched so far into Anatolia and Syria (before the killings)
    Try a trip to Baku in Azerbaijan. A huge amount of history including a British Military cemetery from the Dunsterforce Expedition in 1918.
    The Armenian land that stretched into Anatolia was mainly minority Armenian though.
  • GardenwalkerGardenwalker Posts: 15,249

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    This is just the politics of envy.
    It's not envy. It's anger. It's taking the effing piss.
    Britain has decided to take the Italian route to gerontocratic decline. It happens.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    It is also impossible to argue that "it doesn't cost me anything".
    It makes my shopping more expensive. Unless they are literally taking it out of their profits. Which they aren't.
  • MalmesburyMalmesbury Posts: 28,941

    kyf_100 said:

    PJH said:

    kyf_100 said:

    PJH said:

    Omnium said:

    Omnium said:

    Leon said:

    Sandpit said:

    Leon said:

    I just emailed a publicity person at the Love Toy Carver's Compendium

    I got this reply:

    "Thank you for your email. My regular work days are Monday, Wednesday and Thursday, and I will reply to your message as soon as possible then."

    WTF? So this means he/she now only works 3 days a week. That isn't WFH, that's a 40% drop in productivity. Or am I missing something?

    There’s been a huge increase in white-collar part time working, in the last few years. If the work can still be accomplished in three days, things aren’t particularly time-bound, and both employer and employee are happy with the arrangement - which is probably 60% work for 60% pay - then why not?
    Fair enough. I can't help thinking it shows a lack of urgency, however.

    I never got these "I only work 3 days" pingbacks before Covid
    The WFH thing is a huge threat to any nation that embraces it. The crap people can continue doing their jobs, but the good people won't be able to. Paperclips counted - tick, innovations made - none.
    LOL. This is a fundamentally wrong comment.
    Do explain.
    Many businesses - including those I work in - have seen an increase in productivity since people started working from home rather than a reduction. I was working from home for most of the time for years before covid and once the initial setup issues were dealt with the company bosses found people were far more responsive and they got far better results in a shorter time from people working remotely. The loss of time due to commuting alone is massive and the ability to work more flexibly has greatly improved both the morale and the productivity as measured by quicker turn around of reports.

    This is real world experience rather than theoretical HR rubbish.
    It depends on the industry - some work naturally falls into "one person working alone, for sustained periods" working.

    Others are more continuously collaborative.

    It's almost as if one size doesn't fit all.
    You don't get much more collaborative than drilling a North Sea oil well. And using Teams it is far easier to do that remotely than face to face. Indeed we are now finding clients who are running meetings on Teams from their desks rather than in meeting rooms even when everyone is in the office as it is easier to share presentations etc. We have drop in Teams meetings that run for days on end and it makes life a million times easier for high intensity operations.
    Much better to have everyone join from their desks than half in a room and half remote.
    I agree. But it really doesn't matter if those desks are in the office or at home.
    It does matter - if the desks are in the office, being on a conference call is disruptive to everyone else trying to work nearby. If your working day consists mostly of conference calls, you should work from home if you can.
    Or have an office with a door you can shut when you're on a call. Just like the old days.
    Very old days. Last (and only) time I had one of those was in 1991.
    2016 for me. Then I was moved to an office with no door (considered bringing my own chocolate fireguard as substitute) before finally being tipped into the football field of desks, with noise cancelling headphones and all the other silent drones.

    I got a lot more work done when I had a degree of privacy, the ability to be on calls with people without the whole office hearing, the ability to vent or let off steam if a meeting didn't go well. The ability to gossip, or to console a friend who was having a bad day and wanted to talk.

    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    Modern offices resemble panopticon prisons designed for surveillance, more than places where people can interact with each other and collaborate together.

    Excellent post: almost certainly the best all-rounder would be a set-up as you describe – your own office – that is close to, but not at, home.

    Open plan was a monumentally stupid idea takes the worst aspects of WFH and WFO, and combines them.
    It depends on the implementation. Open plan on the basis of a warehouse full of a desks is a failure. But that actually breaks all the design rules and ideas of the original open plan concept.

    But like people who think that Supply Chain Management means having no stock and depending on suppliers delivering instantly.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,171

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    It's particularly ludicrous to think the Tories are footing the bill, makes more sense to think of him as a false flag operation
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    You can get paid for this shit? Fucking hell, i'm giving away my genius analysis for freezles.
    I reckon i can get Rod Liddle's SDP to fund me, or the many Ratepayers associations in that case
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122
    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
    Why do supermarkets have money off coupons?

    Same reason.
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,171
    dixiedean said:

    It is also impossible to argue that "it doesn't cost me anything".
    It makes my shopping more expensive. Unless they are literally taking it out of their profits. Which they aren't.

    They think it enhances profit or they wouldn't be doing it, hard nosed capitalism being what it is, so it's not clear that anything is being taken out of anything
  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 56,044

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    Your dad's in a small minority.
    Not that small a minority. Wasn't there a report recently that one-in-six of the retired owned a second property? My Dad isn't even in that group.

    There are lots of people under the age of 60 who will be struggling a lot more than lots of those aged over 60. It's a really bad way to identify those who need more help.
    Since only 3% of households own second homes, it’s highly unlikely that the retired are seven times more likely to own a second home than average.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/898190/2020_EHS_second_homes_factsheet.pdf
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    I find it hard to believe that the Labour Party is that ingenious?
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445
    edited June 7
    rcs1000 said:


    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
    Why do supermarkets have money off coupons?

    Same reason.
    Not by age. Anyway. I shall take my custom elsewhere. Not that I spend much.
  • AslanAslan Posts: 1,673
    dixiedean said:

    Aslan said:

    Russia plans to use the death penalty against a British fighter Aiden Aslin who was captured in Ukraine

    Relations with Britain and Russia, which are already at historic lows, are set to plunge further


    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1534152942114197504

    This is outrageous and a massive breach of the Geneva Convention. Fuck these Russian cunts. Give the Ukrainians fighter jets already.
    This has been around for a week or so. Apparently they have three UK citizens prisoner. I said at the time it was the most worrying thing I've read recently. It still is.

    Especially since Russia doesn't have a death penalty. So it will be entirely extra-judicial by domestic law. Let alone Geneva Convention.
    They already extrajudicially killed a British citizen in Litvinenko. About time we take our a couple of Russian spies as a tit for tat.
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Most of the fathers of rather young kids that I know… go to the office to escape their kids

    It’s no slight on the kids or the fathers. But young kids are a lot of work and generally quite boring after about 30 minutes. Especially when eating
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054
    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    A fine argument for those raising kids, but those older 30 and 40 somethings are spending their lunch hours etc with their kids, whereas in an office they might have been spending that time chatting to graduates and child-less twenty-somethings, acting as mentors and essentially educating the "office kids". Now they're not.

    So WFH may be more convenient for things like seeing kids, but it comes at an actual productivity cost.

    I don't doubt that WFH may be better for some employees, but it definitely comes at a cost to employers - lack of cohesion, lack of mentoring, lack of opportunities to progress, harder to onboard new staff, easier for cliques to form and for people to be kept out of the loop, etc.

    Which is why I'm suggesting that offices need to improve to be, as much as possible, the kind of places you want to spend time in. And it should be OK to sneak out early or have a WFH day to see your kids, too.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 45,341
    edited June 7

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    Actually that's a good point. What if the Tory rebels introduced a motion that "This House does not have Confidence in the PM and desires to elect a new one from its ranks"?

    The Opposition parties would presumably support the motion.
    They would have to think long and hard. Easiest would be to abstain - "This is a Conservative Party management matter. If they want our involvement in choosing a PM - call a General Election...."
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 102,735
    kyf_100 said:

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    A fine argument for those raising kids, but those older 30 and 40 somethings are spending their lunch hours etc with their kids, whereas in an office they might have been spending that time chatting to graduates and child-less twenty-somethings, acting as mentors and essentially educating the "office kids". Now they're not.

    So WFH may be more convenient for things like seeing kids, but it comes at an actual productivity cost.

    I don't doubt that WFH may be better for some employees, but it definitely comes at a cost to employers - lack of cohesion, lack of mentoring, lack of opportunities to progress, harder to onboard new staff, easier for cliques to form and for people to be kept out of the loop, etc.

    Which is why I'm suggesting that offices need to improve to be, as much as possible, the kind of places you want to spend time in. And it should be OK to sneak out early or have a WFH day to see your kids, too.
    The latter can be done with team meetings in the office once or twice a month
  • IshmaelZIshmaelZ Posts: 21,171

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    Logically the standard prices have to be higher to allow for a 10% discount across the board for some customers.

    It's another transfer of money from the young to the old.

    My Dad's pension is probably still higher than my salary, and it will be going up by inflation while my salary doesn't, and it's not taxed as heavily. Why should be get discounted groceries too?
    Your dad's in a small minority.
    Not that small a minority. Wasn't there a report recently that one-in-six of the retired owned a second property? My Dad isn't even in that group.

    There are lots of people under the age of 60 who will be struggling a lot more than lots of those aged over 60. It's a really bad way to identify those who need more help.
    Since only 3% of households own second homes, it’s highly unlikely that the retired are seven times more likely to own a second home than average.

    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/898190/2020_EHS_second_homes_factsheet.pdf
    CBA to try to read the pdf on a phone but is there confusion here between second homes where you live some of the time vs second properties including BTLs?
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    Aslan said:

    Leon said:

    Leon said:

    On topic. Has any PB-er been to Armenia?

    I’m thinking of a weekend break there, away from Tbilisi. But all the guidebooks are a little bit lukewarm. “Soviet cities.” “Not that interesting”. How can Armenia not be interesting?! But maybe they are right….

    I think the Armenia in your head is the old Armenia (the Turkish bit around Arafat before the genocide), not the shitty little soviet pretend state
    Yes, that’s what I am beginning to suspect. I recently read an amazing, harrrowing history of the Armenian genocide. I had no idea the Armenian realm stretched so far into Anatolia and Syria (before the killings)
    Try a trip to Baku in Azerbaijan. A huge amount of history including a British Military cemetery from the Dunsterforce Expedition in 1918.
    The Armenian land that stretched into Anatolia was mainly minority Armenian though.
    Yet the Armenians were an essential element, an enlivening, yeasty, enterprising part of it

    In my Armenian genocide book a bereft Turkish peasant in 1919 looks at all the empty Armenian houses and says “Where have the gone? They were the salt of the land. They gave it savour and flavour”

    Rather like Germany without Jews
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122
    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Interesting: the only reason I go into the office is to get away from my kids.
  • rcs1000rcs1000 Posts: 47,122
    Leon said:

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Most of the fathers of rather young kids that I know… go to the office to escape their kids

    It’s no slight on the kids or the fathers. But young kids are a lot of work and generally quite boring after about 30 minutes. Especially when eating
    Damn it. Snap.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,000
    edited June 7

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    On the 10th May in response to @MrEd you posted

    'I have a great respect for people that air their views the way you do

    I am sure there is no coincidence you have awful abuse just as HYUFD does, it is because you will argue your point coherently and without shouting

    We could learn a lot from both of you'

    And today you ask if @HYUFD is paid to post here !!!!!
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    rcs1000 said:

    Leon said:

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Most of the fathers of rather young kids that I know… go to the office to escape their kids

    It’s no slight on the kids or the fathers. But young kids are a lot of work and generally quite boring after about 30 minutes. Especially when eating
    Damn it. Snap.
    The idea that WFH Dad is looking forward to a blissful familial lunch with his 4 year old and 6 year old, or his 1 year old and 3 year old, is poignant


    After about age 7 maybe. If they don’t bicker. Otherwise never
  • Northern_AlNorthern_Al Posts: 5,035
    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Having lunch with one's young children is a horrendous idea, to be avoided at all costs.
    Having an evening meal with young children is not as bad, as you know they'll be off to bed soon.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    IshmaelZ said:

    Aslan said:

    Russia plans to use the death penalty against a British fighter Aiden Aslin who was captured in Ukraine

    Relations with Britain and Russia, which are already at historic lows, are set to plunge further


    https://twitter.com/samramani2/status/1534152942114197504

    This is outrageous and a massive breach of the Geneva Convention. Fuck these Russian cunts. Give the Ukrainians fighter jets already.
    It's trolling by the Russian government. Plus, atrocious as it is, it's not really up there with the torture rape and murder of civilians is it?
    Or poising people on British soil.

    And we still went to the World Cup.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    rcs1000 said:


    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
    Why do supermarkets have money off coupons?

    Same reason.
    I suspect Tuesday is a quiet shopping day, so they are only tempting more people in who wouldn't normally shop then.
  • dixiedeandixiedean Posts: 23,445

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Having lunch with one's young children is a horrendous idea, to be avoided at all costs.
    Having an evening meal with young children is not as bad, as you know they'll be off to bed soon.
    Try being a kindergarten teacher.
    Having lunch with 50-odd of other peoples' 3, 4 and 5 year olds.
    And on a farcically low stool as well.
  • Daveyboy1961Daveyboy1961 Posts: 2,773
    edited June 7

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    Actually that's a good point. What if the Tory rebels introduced a motion that "This House does not have Confidence in the PM and desires to elect a new one from its ranks"?

    The Opposition parties would presumably support the motion.
    They would have to think long and hard. Easiest would be to abstain - "This is a Conservative Party management matter. If they want our involvement in choosing a PM - call a General Election...."
    Not sure individual MPs have the ability to put motions in like that, unless they win the private members lottery. Even official opposition days don't have the power to input bills like that. Mr Speaker would squash it anyway, being a party matter.
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Having lunch with one's young children is a horrendous idea, to be avoided at all costs.
    Having an evening meal with young children is not as bad, as you know they'll be off to bed soon.
    Not having kids and smearing a red hot homemade chilli all over your gob though.....
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,323

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    On the 10th May in response to @MrEd you posted

    'I have a great respect for people that air their views the way you do

    I am sure there is no coincidence you have awful abuse just as HYUFD does, it is because you will argue your point coherently and without shouting

    We could learn a lot from both of you'

    And today you ask if @HYUFD is paid to post here !!!!!
    To be pedantic he didn't ask, he asserted. Which is worse.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651
    edited June 7
    Leon said:

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Most of the fathers of rather young kids that I know… go to the office to escape their kids

    It’s no slight on the kids or the fathers. But young kids are a lot of work and generally quite boring after about 30 minutes. Especially when eating
    That would be a slight on fathers in general IMO, and I guess you know quite a lot of crappy fathers. maybe this is a confessional quote on your part?
  • pm215pm215 Posts: 416
    kyf_100 said:


    I don't doubt that WFH may be better for some employees, but it definitely comes at a cost to employers - lack of cohesion, lack of mentoring, lack of opportunities to progress, harder to onboard new staff, easier for cliques to form and for people to be kept out of the loop, etc.

    Which is why I'm suggesting that offices need to improve to be, as much as possible, the kind of places you want to spend time in. And it should be OK to sneak out early or have a WFH day to see your kids, too.

    Yeah, totally agreed -- though IME even in the kind of business where employees are being paid really quite a lot of money employers can be rather reluctant to pay the extra in office costs to provide better, less open-plan environments. I'm just suggesting that there are some groups of people whose motivation to keep hold of WFH is a lot stronger than others, where almost no amount of making the office environment better will change their minds. (Personally I like WFH but am not too fussed, so now that my employer is pushing for 'be in at least 20% of the time' I'm happy to shift to that rather than rocking the boat. And our office isn't too bad, especially given that the hybrid-work stuff means it's half empty rather than rammed...)
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    dixiedean said:

    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    Aside from commuting costs, which is another argument, fundamentally I think people like WFH because it affords them privacy and comfort, both those things could be provided at the workplace. But for some reason, modern workplaces have neither of those things, and then bosses wonder why people would rather WFH.

    The other notable motivation here I think is those with young families (not my observation -- as a single dude I missed this til somebody pointed it out). Being able to have lunch with your children, or knock off at 6pm and see them immediately rather than having a long commute home first, or not have to find and pay for an extra hour or two a day of childcare to cover the time you're spending commuting -- that's the kind of thing that can be a massive quality of life improvement, and that you might well be willing to change jobs over.
    Having lunch with one's young children is a horrendous idea, to be avoided at all costs.
    Having an evening meal with young children is not as bad, as you know they'll be off to bed soon.
    Try being a kindergarten teacher.
    Having lunch with 50-odd of other peoples' 3, 4 and 5 year olds.
    And on a farcically low stool as well.
    At least most of us would be like, what, top ten intelligenterest in that company though?
    Not all of us, obviously.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,000
    Good evening

    I have been absent today as I experienced one of my rather nasty migraines rendering me unable to see, experiencing an unpleasant headache and utterly washed up

    I have suffered them since my 20s, as indeed do other members of my family, and the medication provided by my gp does recover my vision within an hour or so but paracetamol is needed as well

    On recent events, I am now a 148 er and expect that they will move to replace Boris later this year, especially if they can coalesce around a unity candidate

    For Boris supporters this is not over by a long way
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993
    edited June 7
    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults
  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    Actually that's a good point. What if the Tory rebels introduced a motion that "This House does not have Confidence in the PM and desires to elect a new one from its ranks"?

    The Opposition parties would presumably support the motion.
    They would have to think long and hard. Easiest would be to abstain - "This is a Conservative Party management matter. If they want our involvement in choosing a PM - call a General Election...."
    Not sure individual MPs have the ability to put motions in like that, unless they win the private members lottery. Even official opposition days don't have the power to input bills like that. Mr Speaker would squash it anyway, being a party matter.
    I think outside a formal HoC VONC any bill needs ministerial support/proposal to be binding?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,000
    edited June 7

    HYUFD is paid to post here

    On the 10th May in response to @MrEd you posted

    'I have a great respect for people that air their views the way you do

    I am sure there is no coincidence you have awful abuse just as HYUFD does, it is because you will argue your point coherently and without shouting

    We could learn a lot from both of you'

    And today you ask if @HYUFD is paid to post here !!!!!
    To be pedantic he didn't ask, he asserted. Which is worse.
    Indeed

    I think an apology would be in order
  • IanB2IanB2 Posts: 41,239

    HYUFD said:

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    Thanks and I can confirm I am not paid to post on here (wish I was sometimes!)
    We have many disagreements but the idea you are paid is insulting to you and nonsense
    Sure, that!

    Although, had Starmer been quite so clever, he'd be getting value for every £.
  • northern_monkeynorthern_monkey Posts: 1,045

    Good evening

    I have been absent today as I experienced one of my rather nasty migraines rendering me unable to see, experiencing an unpleasant headache and utterly washed up

    I have suffered them since my 20s, as indeed do other members of my family, and the medication provided by my gp does recover my vision within an hour or so but paracetamol is needed as well

    On recent events, I am now a 148 er and expect that they will move to replace Boris later this year, especially if they can coalesce around a unity candidate

    For Boris supporters this is not over by a long way

    Hope you feel better soon, migraines are not pleasant!
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651

    HYUFD said:

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    Thanks and I can confirm I am not paid to post on here (wish I was sometimes!)
    We have many disagreements but the idea you are paid is insulting to you and nonsense
    Well I mentioned it earlier, along with the suggestion that he did the after dinner circuit as Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf (aka Comical Ali) in order to earn a crust. Just for the avoidance of doubt for the simple minded, neither was intended as a serious possibility
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,323
    IshmaelZ said:

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    It's particularly ludicrous to think the Tories are footing the bill, makes more sense to think of him as a false flag operation
    Lol Labour Party psyops!
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 54,000

    Good evening

    I have been absent today as I experienced one of my rather nasty migraines rendering me unable to see, experiencing an unpleasant headache and utterly washed up

    I have suffered them since my 20s, as indeed do other members of my family, and the medication provided by my gp does recover my vision within an hour or so but paracetamol is needed as well

    On recent events, I am now a 148 er and expect that they will move to replace Boris later this year, especially if they can coalesce around a unity candidate

    For Boris supporters this is not over by a long way

    Hope you feel better soon, migraines are not pleasant!
    Thank you and just coming round but as you say they are not pleasant
  • BenpointerBenpointer Posts: 22,323
    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Ok, I admit, that's pretty good.

    (Who did you pinch it from?)
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054
    pm215 said:

    kyf_100 said:


    I don't doubt that WFH may be better for some employees, but it definitely comes at a cost to employers - lack of cohesion, lack of mentoring, lack of opportunities to progress, harder to onboard new staff, easier for cliques to form and for people to be kept out of the loop, etc.

    Which is why I'm suggesting that offices need to improve to be, as much as possible, the kind of places you want to spend time in. And it should be OK to sneak out early or have a WFH day to see your kids, too.

    Yeah, totally agreed -- though IME even in the kind of business where employees are being paid really quite a lot of money employers can be rather reluctant to pay the extra in office costs to provide better, less open-plan environments. I'm just suggesting that there are some groups of people whose motivation to keep hold of WFH is a lot stronger than others, where almost no amount of making the office environment better will change their minds. (Personally I like WFH but am not too fussed, so now that my employer is pushing for 'be in at least 20% of the time' I'm happy to shift to that rather than rocking the boat. And our office isn't too bad, especially given that the hybrid-work stuff means it's half empty rather than rammed...)
    The dream for me would be to spend four days out of five in a non-open-plan but with lots of social interaction office, with maybe one day a week WFH.

    For me the pendulum starts to shift the other way once more WFH is required. Parts of my small house end up turning into my office (which I am paying for, not my employer, not to mention the heating/electricity bill), I end up eating my dinner off the same table I've spent the last 8 hours working at, and my social interaction suffers and becomes entirely dependent on which of my three friends I can coax to the pub come Friday evening.

    I can do a day or two a week WFH, but any more than that does my nut in, reduces my quality of living, and forces me to pay my employer's office costs / electricity bill, without a substantive rise in pay to compensate.

    So it's office for me.
  • boulayboulay Posts: 1,719
    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Whilst avoiding the ATM.
  • kyf_100kyf_100 Posts: 3,054

    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Ok, I admit, that's pretty good.

    (Who did you pinch it from?)
    I think it is Leon's way of telling us he has indulged in a holiday tryst, probably with a lady much younger than him.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651
    dixiedean said:

    It is also impossible to argue that "it doesn't cost me anything".
    It makes my shopping more expensive. Unless they are literally taking it out of their profits. Which they aren't.

    I have some sympathy. If someone can afford to retire at 60, they more than likely can afford to pay the same for groceries as everyone else.
  • Nigel_ForemainNigel_Foremain Posts: 11,651
    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Ok, I admit, that's pretty good.

    (Who did you pinch it from?)
    I think it is Leon's way of telling us he has indulged in a holiday tryst, probably with a lady much younger than him.
    Except that she has gone away knowing that while it wasn't that good she did at least earn some good old fashioned hard currency for her acting skills
  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,073

    rcs1000 said:

    FF43 said:

    rcs1000 said:

    What's to stop the HoC expelling Johnson for lying to them, passed on a straight vote? No need to wait for the Privileges Committee report.

    That way the opposition MPs plus 148 Tory MPs can be rid of Johnson. HMQ is forced to ask Raab or May or someone to step in as temporary PM, the Cons have a leadership election, new leader duly takes over as PM. Sorted.

    Errr - it would be profoundly undemocratic?
    Why? Seems very democratic and constitutional to me. The public votes for its representatives who can collectively engage and dismiss their ministers.
    That's not what was written. The HoC would be well within its rights to eject BJ from his position as PM.

    But it would be gross constitutional overreach to expel him from the House of Commons.
    Actually that's a good point. What if the Tory rebels introduced a motion that "This House does not have Confidence in the PM and desires to elect a new one from its ranks"?

    The Opposition parties would presumably support the motion.
    They would have to think long and hard. Easiest would be to abstain - "This is a Conservative Party management matter. If they want our involvement in choosing a PM - call a General Election...."
    Not sure individual MPs have the ability to put motions in like that, unless they win the private members lottery. Even official opposition days don't have the power to input bills like that. Mr Speaker would squash it anyway, being a party matter.
    I think outside a formal HoC VONC any bill needs ministerial support/proposal to be binding?
    Yes, that’s correct and explains the Commons Clerks’ indignation when Bercow trampled long-standing convention by allowing the Benn legislation to proceed through Parliament despite the Government’s implacable opposition.
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    Good.

    "EU sets date for common phone charge cable"

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-61720276
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220

    kyf_100 said:

    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Ok, I admit, that's pretty good.

    (Who did you pinch it from?)
    I think it is Leon's way of telling us he has indulged in a holiday tryst, probably with a lady much younger than him.
    Except that she has gone away knowing that while it wasn't that good she did at least earn some good old fashioned hard currency for her acting skills
    And more if she had a source of the blue pills ....
  • LeonLeon Posts: 25,993

    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Ok, I admit, that's pretty good.

    (Who did you pinch it from?)
    Just came to me, as it were

    I was remembering a comment by a PB-er a few days ago, about the exhilaration of sex coming from the fact both people REALLY want it. And then just now I watched a post-coital scene in Borgen Season 4 (a Greenlander and a Dane), and they were happy yet furtive, like they’d stolen something…

  • wooliedyedwooliedyed Posts: 5,368
    edited June 7
    Boredom and existential angst has gripped me so i'm launching a new 'feature'.
    In honour of the lovely Dehenna Davison going all in on ousting dipso fatso i shall occasionally be expressing the situation in the red wall by my reckoning as the Dehenna Factor, the amount i expect her to hold Bishop Auckland by. She starts at plus 17.8 at the 2019 election and the current Dehenna Factor is plus 8.
    Press release ends.

    Edit - the boundary changes if they go through will be non beneficial and therefore post boundary Dehenna factors are 6 points lower
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 23,489
    Drugs are bad, mkay...

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-61716950

    Brenda Edwards has said her son Jamal died from cardiac arrhythmia after he took recreational drugs.

    The music entrepreneur, who helped launch the careers of Dave and Ed Sheeran, died in February aged 31.
  • fitalassfitalass Posts: 4,165

    Good evening

    I have been absent today as I experienced one of my rather nasty migraines rendering me unable to see, experiencing an unpleasant headache and utterly washed up

    I have suffered them since my 20s, as indeed do other members of my family, and the medication provided by my gp does recover my vision within an hour or so but paracetamol is needed as well

    On recent events, I am now a 148 er and expect that they will move to replace Boris later this year, especially if they can coalesce around a unity candidate

    For Boris supporters this is not over by a long way

    Hope you feel better soon. On your point about the 148 rebels possible finding a unity candidate they can support, isn't there a risk that some Ministers with leadership ambitions are now damaging their chances by remaining in Cabinet propping up Boris and leaving the field open to a high profile backbencher? There may not have been any resignations today despite rumours last night, but surely the game will be up for Boris if this happens over coming weeks or months?
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    That's the sort of sentence I'd expect a C-list writer to come up with. Like the sex it describes, momentarily entertaining but soon unappreciated. Forgotten by both parties, aside from perhaps a vestigial lingering regret.

    Love-making is much more complex and varied, ;)
  • JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 31,220
    boulay said:

    Leon said:

    Great sex is like a mutually satisfying robbery

    It’s like two banks blowing each other up and then running off, cackling, with the gold from each other’s vaults

    Whilst avoiding the ATM.
    The modern robbery avoids all the explosives and messy physical stuff and just sets up a Nigeria or NFT scam.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 16,937
    HYUFD said:

    I suspect that the claim that HYUFD is paid to post here is absolute garbage.

    I'm not a fan of his politics but he's a political hobbyist and indeed is a very community-minded nice bloke in real life.

    The idea that he is some sort of Central Office asset trying to influence a load of gastronomically ignorant, undersexed middle-aged trainspotters on PB is ludicrous.

    Thanks and I can confirm I am not paid to post on here (wish I was sometimes!)
    HyUfD. спасибо за вашу самоотверженную работу hyufd. Ваш Влад
  • noneoftheabovenoneoftheabove Posts: 15,157
    edited June 7
    dixiedean said:

    rcs1000 said:


    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    dixiedean said:

    Just got back from Iceland (the store).
    Are you over 60?
    No. Why?
    10% discount on your shopping on Tuesday if you're over 60.
    WTAF?
    Just emailed to tell them I am not shopping there any more.

    Many many stores do similar things. B&Q used to have a discount Tuesday for anyone over 60. It is far more common than you might think.

    Not sure why you object. Aren't you glad they are showing a bit of social conscience and trying to ease the burden on the elderly?

    Does it actually affect you in any way? If not I don't see why you should be upset.

    Oh and I am under 60 so I don't benefit from any of this stuff.
    It's keeping prices high for the under 60's.
    Imagine 10% off for left handers or white people?
    There are plenty of folk struggling. Many with jobs who pay for their own and the elderly's public transport.
    The fact no one is surprised is a sign of what a gerontocracy we're becoming. God forbid boomers might be inconvenienced.
    Again, the politics of envy.
    Nonsense.
    It's a transfer of money from hard-working families at a time of high inflation to the elderly.
    Why not a 5% price cut across the board?
    Why do supermarkets have money off coupons?

    Same reason.
    Not by age. Anyway. I shall take my custom elsewhere. Not that I spend much.
    You should set up a new venture where over 60s do a shop at Iceland for under 60s, over 60s get 4%, unders 60s 4% off and you take the 2% commission.
  • SirNorfolkPassmoreSirNorfolkPassmore Posts: 4,047
    dixiedean said:

    It is also impossible to argue that "it doesn't cost me anything".
    It makes my shopping more expensive. Unless they are literally taking it out of their profits. Which they aren't.

    No - this is a fundamental misunderstanding of the economics of running a supermarket (or anything else really).

    Simplifying, you have variable costs (principally the stock itself - costs increase as sales increase and fall as they fall) and fixed costs (the building, the staff etc - costs don't vary, at least in the short term, as sales go up or down).

    What you are aiming to do with every sale is cover the variable costs in full, and contribute to fixed costs. Crucially, not every sale needs to contribute to fixed costs to the same degree - you just need to cover them across trading as a whole (and after that, the rest is profit).

    So when Iceland give an OAP discount, that's what they are doing. They are saying they'd rather the OAPs shopped with them and covered variable costs (which they certainly will) and contribute to fixed costs (which they also will) even if they contribute less to fixed costs than under 65s.

    To your point, the discount probably does NOT cost the under 65s money. If Iceland have judged it right, it SAVES you money. That's because more OAPs should shop at Iceland, which should contribute more to fixed costs overall (even though each individual shopper is contributing less) spreading the burden of covering fixed costs.
This discussion has been closed.