Time is running out for Rishi to turn this round – politicalbetting.com

Farooq said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

The gorilla is to show they're alphas. The lack of socks is a signal that they are hard men, ready to kick off their shows and give each other a foot job karate lessons at a moment's notice.

Socks are for the soft. Gorillas don't wear socks.

I like the way it looks as though the gorilla is listening intently

Mr. Farooq, Roman legions in Britain wore socks and sandals.

On the French riots, by coincidence I was reading this week about the weaver riots in Lyon in 1830s.

The Canut revolts.

Pretty bloody.

Plus ca change and all that.

In the new and excellent Christopher Clark book on 1848 revolution.

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Given how NYT activist employees seem to think everybody is a Nazi, they seemed to be ignorant of the actual Nazis.

NYT - In a First, Germany’s Far Right Will Take Control of a District....

https://web.archive.org/web/20230626161909/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/world/europe/germany-afd-far-right.html

(they have corrected it now).

Did they come under Prussia over their error?

Will Putin feel the need to invade?

Maybe it's Posen him a dilemma.

It will surprise nobody that I think Sunak has run out of road. I see no harm in chucking him out now and giving the new leader a brief spell in power before what seems like inevitable opposition. The new leader would have to have a wide coalition, possibly even including Hunt (though not at the Treasury), and bring back some capable backbenchers. The aim would be to implement what economy-friendly policies could be managed in the short time available. The question is 'who'. The answer is probably Penny Mordaunt.

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

Luckyguy1983 said:

It will surprise nobody that I think Sunak has run out of road. I see no harm in chucking him out now and giving the new leader a brief spell in power before what seems like inevitable opposition. The new leader would have to have a wide coalition, possibly even including Hunt (though not at the Treasury), and bring back some capable backbenchers. The aim would be to implement what economy-friendly policies could be managed in the short time available. The question is 'who'. The answer is probably Penny Mordaunt.

I don't think any of the serious contenders will want to be in post as leader to lose the election. Sunak will remain where he is. If Mordaunt is elected after the election she is probably one of the few Tories with the ability to deny Starmer a second term, depending on how large a majority he gains at the next GE

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

TheScreamingEagles said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

No Tory poll leads since 6th December 2021.

BJO fans please explain!

Would we be surprised if it was 2031 and that stat still held true?

Tories didn’t lead in a poll between the end of 1992 and September 2000.

So it is possible.

I don't really see the economic situation getting better in the foreseeable future (certainly not the sort of boom we saw in the late 90s), but we will see the obvious (insert previous party) f##ked all this up line and that is normally good enough for at least a few years.

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Given how NYT activist employees seem to think everybody is a Nazi, they seemed to be ignorant of the actual Nazis.

NYT - In a First, Germany’s Far Right Will Take Control of a District....

https://web.archive.org/web/20230626161909/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/world/europe/germany-afd-far-right.html

(they have corrected it now).

Did they come under Prussia over their error?

Will Putin feel the need to invade?

Maybe it's Posen him a dilemma.

Hopefully he may pause before Prussian into anything

I lose weight when I am asleep, as I am not eating, but burning calories.

Therefore, having a lie in is an excellent weight loss strategy.

When I stopped eating meat (with the occasional cheat) I put on weight as I compensated by eating loads more cheese. Reintroducing oily fish reduced the cheese intake and did the trick.

Keeping the intake of chocolate, biscuits and cake at a moderate level is more of a challenge for me.

twistedfirestopper3 said:

JosiasJessop said:

noneoftheabove said:

JosiasJessop said:

In mt experience, it's a really complex issue.

Many people want to have a different body shape (mostly thinner) because they think that equates to health and vitality: it's the idealised body shape we're subjected to all the time in the media and online. The one-size-fits-all worldview.

The problem is, that 'ideal' (*) is unachievable to many. Take a lady I know (not Mrs J) who is very fit (a runner), yet is technically obese. She is very unhappy because of this, and spends a lot of money on different diets and fads. But as I said, she is very fit.

Another friend of mine is incredibly slight and slender, as though a gust of wind might blow her away. She is, IMV, unfit. She has also had eating problems in the past.

I'm trying to lose weight, partly because of my running - less weight to carry around. According to Garmin, my fitness age is 21 - I'm 50. But despite this, I still feel like I'm a little podgy. Not enough to cause me mental anguish, but enough to curse the scales the day after a party.

I wonder if a change in definition of fitness could be made. Instead of looking at things like weight and BMI, which are vague tools at best, perhaps something akin to simple rules of thumb= like the following:

You are fit if you can do any of these:
*) Walk six miles in two hours on the flat without getting breathless
*) Go up three flights of stairs in a minute without getting breathless.
*) You can jog a kilometre in under ten minutes.
*) You can do twenty perfect push-ups in one go.

(*) IMO it's not ideal; often the models appear very underweight.

Hang on, most can fast walk a kilometre in under ten minutes - it is hardly a mark of fitness if someone can jog that. Whereas twenty perfect push ups is probably less than 10% maybe less than 5% of the population.

The values can be altered as appropriate. And you might be surprised who cannot jog that far - especially without getting breathless (as I forgot to add to that option...)

The point is that weight is a really poor measure of fitness and health, and one that causes a great deal of mental anguish. Giving a set of physical options that say: "You're good if you can do this!" is much more positive - especially if the range of options is inclusive (I added push-ups as there was a time I could not walk).

BMI is also a poor measure that takes little account of bodyshape. More accurate measures are harder to take and are far less accessible.

I agree with all that, but our lad Leon is moaning about his extra timber whilst quaffing booze and eating like a king in expensive restaurants. He'd rather spend a fortune on diet pills than cut back his lifestyle choices. He's overweight because he wants to be, most folk don't get that option, they eat what they can afford or have time to prepare and for far too many people in the UK, that means ultra processed crap.

I get the impression Leon isn't moaning due to his weight: he's moaning to draw attention to the fact he can quaff *excellent* booze and eat like a *king* in *expensive* restaurants, and is *edgy* enough to take some potentially-dubious and *expensive* dieting pills.

It's performance-art moaning.

JosiasJessop said:

noneoftheabove said:

JosiasJessop said:

In mt experience, it's a really complex issue.

Many people want to have a different body shape (mostly thinner) because they think that equates to health and vitality: it's the idealised body shape we're subjected to all the time in the media and online. The one-size-fits-all worldview.

The problem is, that 'ideal' (*) is unachievable to many. Take a lady I know (not Mrs J) who is very fit (a runner), yet is technically obese. She is very unhappy because of this, and spends a lot of money on different diets and fads. But as I said, she is very fit.

Another friend of mine is incredibly slight and slender, as though a gust of wind might blow her away. She is, IMV, unfit. She has also had eating problems in the past.

I'm trying to lose weight, partly because of my running - less weight to carry around. According to Garmin, my fitness age is 21 - I'm 50. But despite this, I still feel like I'm a little podgy. Not enough to cause me mental anguish, but enough to curse the scales the day after a party.

I wonder if a change in definition of fitness could be made. Instead of looking at things like weight and BMI, which are vague tools at best, perhaps something akin to simple rules of thumb= like the following:

You are fit if you can do any of these:
*) Walk six miles in two hours on the flat without getting breathless
*) Go up three flights of stairs in a minute without getting breathless.
*) You can jog a kilometre in under ten minutes.
*) You can do twenty perfect push-ups in one go.

(*) IMO it's not ideal; often the models appear very underweight.

Hang on, most can fast walk a kilometre in under ten minutes - it is hardly a mark of fitness if someone can jog that. Whereas twenty perfect push ups is probably less than 10% maybe less than 5% of the population.

The values can be altered as appropriate. And you might be surprised who cannot jog that far - especially without getting breathless (as I forgot to add to that option...)

The point is that weight is a really poor measure of fitness and health, and one that causes a great deal of mental anguish. Giving a set of physical options that say: "You're good if you can do this!" is much more positive - especially if the range of options is inclusive (I added push-ups as there was a time I could not walk).

BMI is also a poor measure that takes little account of bodyshape. More accurate measures are harder to take and are far less accessible.

BMI is a good but imperfect measure of health risks rather than a poor measure.
Fitness and health are linked but also separate.

I'd say your walking and jogging criteria are very generous, the stairs is probably about right and the push ups very strict, but they only measure limited aspects of fitness still.

I have good stamina, average strength and poor flexibility. Passing single tests like those above, don't test enough variety to see if someone is fit or not imo.

In terms of mental health and fitness, we should incorportate fitness and diet into our daily lives and structures from starting school, then it would be far less of a challenge as we get older.

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

Because bending down to retie a shoelace is a good way to determine whether you are being followed.

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

Nigel_Foremain said:

ydoethur said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Given how NYT activist employees seem to think everybody is a Nazi, they seemed to be ignorant of the actual Nazis.

NYT - In a First, Germany’s Far Right Will Take Control of a District....

https://web.archive.org/web/20230626161909/https://www.nytimes.com/2023/06/26/world/europe/germany-afd-far-right.html

(they have corrected it now).

Did they come under Prussia over their error?

Will Putin feel the need to invade?

Maybe it's Posen him a dilemma.

Hopefully he may pause before Prussian into anything

He's never Lett that stop him before.

He has so little of his original army left that he only has one professional soldier left. Therefore he will have to ensure his only Pro-goes-in first.

(beat that one Mr Pun champ)

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

SandyRentool said:

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

Because bending down to retie a shoelace is a good way to determine whether you are being followed.

Gives the enemy spy a chance to catch up! Us slip on agents use the following technique instead:

Enter building
Take shoes off
Wait for follower to take shoes off
Slip shoes back on
Take advantage of the 30 seconds the follower needs to tie his laces back up to leave the building safely.

SKS says It’s really not that complicated: stop bailing out private companies and bring our water into public ownership instead.

bigjohnowls said:

So its an hour since I posted that Labour Tories and Tory Tories are identical in almost every respect.

About 20 replies (mostly namecalling)

Not a single one arguing the factual accuracy of any of the list of why they are basically 2 heads of the same rancid beast

Telling

Im off to footy Alsager vs Congleton

I've heard right-wingers make the same complaint just this week. That centrists in the Cabinet are not real Tories and could happily serve under Starmer. As we used to say, the Blairites are Cameroons, and the Cameroons are Blairites.

viewcode said:

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

They enable better adaptation to foot variance (useful if your feet swell or wear different-thick socks), promote better gait thru being securely fixed, provide a good indicator of fitness (if you can't bend down to tie them up then you have problems) and - not applicable to PB's more rareified denizens but nevertheless - if you are down on your luck and need cheering up, a new pair of laces can make you feel like a millionaire.

Feet don't swell, at least not noticably. Know my fitness from gym and running. Wear trainers with lace ups most of the time I'm out so gait for the limited time Im wearing formal shoes pretty irrelevant.

bigjohnowls said:

bigjohnowls said:

SKS says It’s really not that complicated: stop bailing out private companies and bring our water into public ownership instead.

He has changed his mind now though.

All for the current broken system

Centrists all happy to support the former and now the latter as to not do so would be SKS Fan treason

Jezza still on the right side mind but you cant now support that stance even though circa 80% do

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

Couple of very curt interviews on TMS in last couple of days

DecrepiterJohnL said:

bigjohnowls said:

So its an hour since I posted that Labour Tories and Tory Tories are identical in almost every respect.

About 20 replies (mostly namecalling)

Not a single one arguing the factual accuracy of any of the list of why they are basically 2 heads of the same rancid beast

Telling

Im off to footy Alsager vs Congleton

I've heard right-wingers make the same complaint just this week. That centrists in the Cabinet are not real Tories and could happily serve under Starmer. As we used to say, the Blairites are Cameroons, and the Cameroons are Blairites.

It used to be called Butskellism in that halcyon decade when everyone agreed about everything.

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

Couple of very curt interviews on TMS in last couple of days

To be fair, TMS don't know s##t.....so I don't blame the England cricket team for not having much time for their idiotic questions.

noneoftheabove said:

...Feet don't swell, at least not noticably...

Unfortunately for people who stand for long periods, and especially for people with circulation problems, they most certainly do.

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

Couple of very curt interviews on TMS in last couple of days

To be fair, TMS don't know s##t.....so I don't blame the England cricket team for not having much time for their idiotic questions.

Is it idiotic to ask them about the aggressive approach? KP tried to defend them by saying you attack short-pitch bowling because it's scary, but I'm not sure Duckett was afraid of it given the way he was swatting the short ball.

BartholomewRoberts said:

.

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

I did go Lib Dem at the Local Election, in part because my local Lib Dem candidate was not remotely NIMBY and appealed based on campaigning on roads and schools instead.

However on a national level, while I respect the Lib Dems on many issues I am appalled at their cynical NIMBYism. And SKS at least is attempting to tackle the Housing issue, what has Davey had to say about it apart from appealing to NIMBYs to win by-elections?

I've not made my mind up yet. But SKS is currently winning my respect more than Davey or Sunak, and I never thought I'd say that.

Well you did vote for Blair, hardly surprising you are now likely to vote for Starmer

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

They enable better adaptation to foot variance (useful if your feet swell or wear different-thick socks), promote better gait thru being securely fixed, provide a good indicator of fitness (if you can't bend down to tie them up then you have problems) and - not applicable to PB's more rareified denizens but nevertheless - if you are down on your luck and need cheering up, a new pair of laces can make you feel like a millionaire.

Feet don't swell, at least not noticably. Know my fitness from gym and running. Wear trainers with lace ups most of the time I'm out so gait for the limited time Im wearing formal shoes pretty irrelevant.

I'm odd with laces: after I get shoes, I tie them up, and never untie them. I always slip them on.

It's because I've got metal and nerve damage in an ankle. If I tie up my shoes too tightly, I can be in agony. Once I get the laces right, I never want to undo them and risk getting it wrong. It's also blooming difficult for me to buy shoes, as I get a pair, and then after a week find myself in agony. Once I find a good pair, I buy several.

The same's true for walking boots, except I have to lace them (although the laces put less strain on the side of the ankle than shoes do). I once ordered five identical pairs of walking boots from Open Air (RIP) in Cambridge, much to their amusement.

viewcode said:

Carnyx said:

viewcode said:

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

They enable better adaptation to foot variance (useful if your feet swell or wear different-thick socks), promote better gait thru being securely fixed, provide a good indicator of fitness (if you can't bend down to tie them up then you have problems) and - not applicable to PB's more rareified denizens but nevertheless - if you are down on your luck and need cheering up, a new pair of laces can make you feel like a millionaire.

Also, in my case, so Mrs C can have the worn and broken laces to tie up her garden plants.

Never be in a situation where string or a string substitute cannot be easily obtained.

Quite. Actually, the brown or black colours work very well - much better than plastic ties, quite apart from the economy. Sp it doesn't qualify for the Viz letters from the readers page.

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

bigjohnowls said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

FrancisUrquhart said:

I don't think the England cricket team think too much of Aggers...

He (Duckett) was feisty in an interview with me on Test Match Special and bristled when I questioned whether England should have reined it in.

https://www.bbc.com/sport/cricket/66068007

Couple of very curt interviews on TMS in last couple of days

To be fair, TMS don't know s##t.....so I don't blame the England cricket team for not having much time for their idiotic questions.

Is it idiotic to ask them about the aggressive approach? KP tried to defend them by saying you attack short-pitch bowling because it's scary, but I'm not sure Duckett was afraid of it given the way he was swatting the short ball.

No. I meant in general, I reckon the England team don't have much respect for their opinions. Aggers, Tuffers, etc know square root of f##k all about modern cricket. Tuffers on T20 is worse than a bloke down the pub after 10 pints trying to tell you about the tactical approach of modern T20.

Stokes gives them short shrift most of the time.

Where as when these pros talk to the likes of Jarrod Kimber it is totally different.

Stocky said:

kjh said:

twistedfirestopper3 said:

Leon said:

DougSeal said:

Leon said:

carnforth said:

Leon said:

Ozempic is weird but effective

Did you just buy the starter pack, or are you all in?

All in. Started on 0.5. Insanely expensive*

I briefly felt a little nauseous yesterday - day 2 - but nowt else. Fine otherwise

Today I got the first "positive" effects. My appetite has simple dropped away. You stop thinking about food and you feel full very quickly when you do eat. Just has Coquille St Jacques and a green salad, first and only meal of the day. Feel sated

*will be worth it, alone, if it reduces my crazily spendy wine habit

I had to Google it. Do you need it or are you taking it recreationally? I picture you as some rakishly rake thin.

I'm a little chunky. Could easily lose 10-12 pounds I put on in lockdown and just won't sod off. But I'm not obese and I don't really need it - so it is vanity, but it is also curiosity

These drugs could be revolutionary if they work. The NHS could save tens of billions if we can abolish severe overwight and obesity with mere pills and jabs (which will come down in price sharply and shortly)

That's insane. You would save a fortune and lose weight just by cutting down on the booze and easing back on all the gourmet nosh. Most obese people are obese because the only food they can afford or can be bothered to cook is over processed dogshite, full of sweeteners and edible chemicals that don't sate you and make you want more. You're a fat knacker because you've got more money than sense and never say no.
For some reason, you're one of my favourite posters on here, but have a tendency towards being a bell end (as do we all!)

I've liked but reluctantly because I have exactly the same issue as @Leon . I don't eat junk food at all, but I eat and drink an awful lot and love it. It does mean when I cut back the weight drops off but I need motivation to do so which is usually events that require a lower weight.

I think we need to stop judging people on their body shape.

You say you eat and drink a lot and love it. That's great, you are doing what you want and it is obvious that that you value this more than you value a slimmer body shape. Good for you. If you valued a slimmer body more you would not indulge as much. People are the shape they want to be but won't accept this. Sure if they had a magic wand they would take a slimmer version but not at the expense of losing other things they indulge in life. Maximising utility and all that.

That's all fine, but if they start getting illnesses caused by being overweight or obese, who do they expect to pay the bills for their medical treatment? If they live in the UK, the answer is other people.

No idea why the England team don't respect TMS...this is what Tuffer just said...

It's going to be interesting, are England going to play for a draw?

He gets paid to say this shit.

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

And this self entitled attitude is the problem.

Thinking that working and non working people should be treated fairly and equitably is not anti elderly.

How is it anti elderly to think that if teachers or firefighters or nurses can't get a double digit pay rise that pensioners shouldn't either?

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

Not if they are Leavers who want more housing in the greenbelt like Bart, the LDs were anti Brexit and are the most NIMBY of the 3 main parties too

Leave or Remain has nothing to do with it anymore. Brexit is done, history, finished. It's happened.

Anyone who still campaigns on Leave or Remain grounds is an absolute moron. And anyone who thinks Leavers will vote Tory because Brexit is a bigger fool.

It's the past now, look to the future.

Labour will certainly align us closer to EU regulations if they win, if they are re elected they will likely re enter the EEA, if they have a 3rd term Labour will likely look to rejoin the full EU

Alphabet_Soup said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

The purpose of the triple lock is to raise the state pension, by hook or by crook, to a similar level to other European countries. Most working people can see the point of this if they are confident of receiving it themselves in due course. There is a separate issue of a minority of pensioners who are visibly richer than they need to be when everyone else is feeling the pinch. They (i.e. We) won't be harmed much by the loss of the triple lock but the majority of poorer pensioners, and future poorer pensioners, certainly would be.

Poorer pensioners can be protected by Pension Credit rather than State Pension. If people in their 20s and 30s think they will receive similar levels of non means tested pension as todays pensioners get they are deluded.

HYUFD said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

Not if they are Leavers who want more housing in the greenbelt like Bart, the LDs were anti Brexit and are the most NIMBY of the 3 main parties too

Leave or Remain has nothing to do with it anymore. Brexit is done, history, finished. It's happened.

Anyone who still campaigns on Leave or Remain grounds is an absolute moron. And anyone who thinks Leavers will vote Tory because Brexit is a bigger fool.

It's the past now, look to the future.

Labour will certainly align us closer to EU regulations if they win, if they are re elected they will likely re enter the EEA, if they have a 3rd term Labour will likely look to rejoin the full EU

And if that turns out to be the will of the people by then, why not?

noneoftheabove said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

The purpose of the triple lock is to raise the state pension, by hook or by crook, to a similar level to other European countries. Most working people can see the point of this if they are confident of receiving it themselves in due course. There is a separate issue of a minority of pensioners who are visibly richer than they need to be when everyone else is feeling the pinch. They (i.e. We) won't be harmed much by the loss of the triple lock but the majority of poorer pensioners, and future poorer pensioners, certainly would be.

Poorer pensioners can be protected by Pension Credit rather than State Pension. If people in their 20s and 30s think they will receive similar levels of non means tested pension as todays pensioners get they are deluded.

The problem is that a lot of poorer pensioners don't claim what they are entitled to.

I really think we need to have a proper look at how we can ensure pensioners automatically receive enough money to live on and if that means people receiving their pension are taxed at a different rate to everyone else so be it.

tlg86 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

No idea why the England team don't respect TMS...this is what Tuffer just said...

It's going to be interesting, are England going to play for a draw?

He gets paid to say this shit.

What’s wrong with that question other than an answer needs to be caveated with “it depends on when the Australians declare”?

Here's another cracker,

"I think England have looked better when they have been dominating. When Australia have been dominating, they have been more conservative. Their little mistakes haven't been as costly as ours."

What the f##k is he talking about. Its absolute drivel.

noneoftheabove said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

The purpose of the triple lock is to raise the state pension, by hook or by crook, to a similar level to other European countries. Most working people can see the point of this if they are confident of receiving it themselves in due course. There is a separate issue of a minority of pensioners who are visibly richer than they need to be when everyone else is feeling the pinch. They (i.e. We) won't be harmed much by the loss of the triple lock but the majority of poorer pensioners, and future poorer pensioners, certainly would be.

Poorer pensioners can be protected by Pension Credit rather than State Pension. If people in their 20s and 30s think they will receive similar levels of non means tested pension as todays pensioners get they are deluded.

But if you means test pensions, it discourages people from making their own provision, which is the kind of long term mistake the UK makes all the time.

noneoftheabove said:

SandyRentool said:

noneoftheabove said:

viewcode said:

SirNorfolkPassmore said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

Why's Carlson got a can of super strength lager on the table next to him? You'd have thought Tate would've offered him a glass, to give it fractionally less of an "alcos on a park bench" vibe.

Slip-on shoes. Shows they're either too unfit or too lazy to bend down and tie them.

Somebody told me this once and I don't know if it's true or not: fixings on clothing are getting rarer/less complex. Button-up shirts are replaced by t-shirts or the top button is never done up. Slip-on shoes replace laced. Button-up flies were replaced by zips. The two people above are wealthy and indicate their class thru their choices of clothing, which indirectly betray their disadvantages.

What is the actual advantage of shoe laces on mens formal shoes? I see the advantage with trainers as get a better fit, but if the shoe is a pretty fixed shape anyway why bother with laces?

Because bending down to retie a shoelace is a good way to determine whether you are being followed.

Gives the enemy spy a chance to catch up! Us slip on agents use the following technique instead:

Enter building
Take shoes off
Wait for follower to take shoes off
Slip shoes back on
Take advantage of the 30 seconds the follower needs to tie his laces back up to leave the building safely.

I see the course at Sarratt hasn't changed.

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation

No, it isn't.

You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.

If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.

You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.

The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.

Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays

eek said:

noneoftheabove said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

The purpose of the triple lock is to raise the state pension, by hook or by crook, to a similar level to other European countries. Most working people can see the point of this if they are confident of receiving it themselves in due course. There is a separate issue of a minority of pensioners who are visibly richer than they need to be when everyone else is feeling the pinch. They (i.e. We) won't be harmed much by the loss of the triple lock but the majority of poorer pensioners, and future poorer pensioners, certainly would be.

Poorer pensioners can be protected by Pension Credit rather than State Pension. If people in their 20s and 30s think they will receive similar levels of non means tested pension as todays pensioners get they are deluded.

The problem is that a lot of poorer pensioners don't claim what they are entitled to.

I really think we need to have a proper look at how we can ensure pensioners automatically receive enough money to live on and if that means people receiving their pension are taxed at a different rate to everyone else so be it.

I am all for helping the poorest in society but there is an element of they also need to be willing to help themselves. We aren't rich enough to afford an unnecessary £10bn a year state pension increase because some other pensioners aren't willing to claim what they are owed.

Happy to spend plenty on advertising to them and simplifying processes to get them to claim, but not happy to accept it means we automatically have to give extra billions to the richest cohort from poorer cohorts.

If I were Australia, I’d bat to the point where normally you’d expect the opposition to play for a draw. No need to tempt England to go for it and very amusing for them if England do shut up shop.

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation

No, it isn't.

You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.

If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.

You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.

The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.

Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays

You forgot to use "Tory" three times, before each mention of "pensioners".

Carnyx said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation

No, it isn't.

You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.

If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.

You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.

The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.

Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays

You forgot to use "Tory" three times, before each mention of "pensioners".

They aren't always. Blair won pensioners in 1997

Farooq said:

Theuniondivvie said:

Just a couple of bros hanging out with a ceramic gorilla.

As an aside, no one should go for the skinny chino, no socks, loafers thing, but DEFINITELY not the overweight and/or middle aged. Leon, I’m looking at you.

The gorilla is to show they're alphas. The lack of socks is a signal that they are hard men, ready to kick off their shoes and give each other a foot job karate lessons at a moment's notice.

Socks are for the soft. Gorillas don't wear socks.

The tin of over strength lager is to show solidarity to the target audience of incel alcoholics.

Alphabet_Soup said:

Stocky said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

Not if they are Leavers who want more housing in the greenbelt like Bart, the LDs were anti Brexit and are the most NIMBY of the 3 main parties too

I don't believe that the LDs are more "nimby" than the other parties - it's just a stance to win particular constituency elections. Environmentalists, who are sometimes accused of being nimby, actually do not want mass house-building in any green area of the UK. Not in anyone's back yard. As for the others, why is nimby a derogatory term anyway? I always think less of those that use it. Of course people want to look after their own area and, by extension, their country.

For example, here's a Labour nimby:

https://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/appeal-win-is-dark-day-for-democracy-says-warwick-and-leamington-mp/

The principal objections to the development are (a) new residents would have to drive down pre-existing streets and (b) loss of dog-crapping space.

As a general point, political questions about new development come up early in almost every political career. Campaigning against new development is one thing that you need to do to get elected - it is in the same category as reporting potholes. Because it is something that matters to voters. I don't see how this will ever change. In many ways it is a necessary part of the process, because often it leads to improvements in developments and compromises being struck.

darkage said:

Alphabet_Soup said:

Stocky said:

HYUFD said:

Stocky said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Stocky, I missed the second half of your question, sorry just re-read it. What makes me think a LP Government would satisfy me more?

Pretty much nothing to be honest. I do not trust Labour as far as I could throw them, and as far as extracting the efforts of those who are working and transferring it to those who are preferred interests then I think Labour could be every bit as bad as the Tories are. So I'm not exactly keen on Labour winning.

Though if my efforts are to be taxed and redistributed to others anyway, then I'd rather that redistribution goes to fund the less fortunate than fund those who want to ensure their inheritance is as big as possible. So Labour becomes the lesser of two evils.

And at least on housing, SKS is making the right noises. He's at least pretending he gets it. Whether he does or not, I don't know.

But I've always been an advocate of better the devil you don't know. If we know the Tories are going to be bad, then its time for a change.

Labour haven't yet won my vote though, but it is certainly open to them for the first time in decades.

IMO, and I feel I know you reasonably well and are not too far away from you ideologically on most things, it would be a big mistake to vote Labour. Disaffected Tories like you should surely stop off at at the LibDems??

Not if they are Leavers who want more housing in the greenbelt like Bart, the LDs were anti Brexit and are the most NIMBY of the 3 main parties too

I don't believe that the LDs are more "nimby" than the other parties - it's just a stance to win particular constituency elections. Environmentalists, who are sometimes accused of being nimby, actually do not want mass house-building in any green area of the UK. Not in anyone's back yard. As for the others, why is nimby a derogatory term anyway? I always think less of those that use it. Of course people want to look after their own area and, by extension, their country.

For example, here's a Labour nimby:

https://leamingtonobserver.co.uk/news/appeal-win-is-dark-day-for-democracy-says-warwick-and-leamington-mp/

The principal objections to the development are (a) new residents would have to drive down pre-existing streets and (b) loss of dog-crapping space.

As a general point, political questions about new development come up early in almost every political career. Campaigning against new development is one thing that you need to do to get elected - it is in the same category as reporting potholes. Because it is something that matters to voters. I don't see how this will ever change. In many ways it is a necessary part of the process, because often it leads to improvements in developments and compromises being struck.

The problem with developments is that there is nothing like enough. We have a shortfall of 3 million homes, so people are compelled to live within crappy sublets of a house rather than having a home of their own.

It can change by a government having the cojones of removing the political process out of development. Liberalising the system, Japan style, so that politicians do not get a say in what people do with residential zoned land.

It should be no more up to politicians what someone does with their own land, so long as it's within regulations, than it is up to them what stock a supermarket sells subject to same caveat.

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

HYUFD said:

Farooq said:

Big_G_NorthWales said:

noneoftheabove said:

BartholomewRoberts said:

Oh and Stocky third and final strike for why I dislike this Government - the wages of those who are working for a living is going up by well under inflation, while the taxpayers funded wages for those who are on benefits instead is protected by the Triple Lock.

If the Conservative Party won't stand up for people who work for a living, who will?

The modern Conservative Party has become the party of the welfare state, its just that welfare state now is for people who have retired. Triple lock, student taxes going up, wages held down, taxes on wages going up, rents to be paid due to a shortfall in housing . . . what is there to respect?

Where is the party of aspiration?

The people standing up for people who labour for a living, should be, err, Labour. They will be triple lockers as well though, albeit for slightly different reasons.

The conversation on pb this week about a 70 year old needing a new car and the tone being about eligibility for a blue badge and that their children should pay for the car demonstate why Labour will keep it. There is still a lingering misapprehension that 70 year olds need extra support. 70 is the new 60 and 80 is the new 70 and all that.

As I said yesterday Sunak is committed to including the triple lock in the conservative manifesto and now Starmer has done the same

I also posted a 2021 yougov survey that showed majority support for the triple lock across all ages including the young.

It is a warning to all those who seem anti elderly that it is not a majority view

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1674406530802765826?t=bDR9hfISQSOc_T9o4PZNIg&s=19

Being against the triple lock is not anti-elderly

It is for those who are reliant on the state pension only, in any case benefits and the minimum wage also are up 10% so the poorest receive most protection from high inflation

No, it isn't.

You can make solid arguments for and against it. But to paint opposition to it as "anti-elderly" is a deliberate mischaracterisation.

If we had a period of low earnings growth and low inflation, the triple lock says that pensions should grow faster than both, minimum 2.5%.

You can argue that they should grow faster. You can argue that they shouldn't. But those who would remove that pillar are against the triple lock without agreeing the inflation should erode pensions. At some point, and this is absolutely certain, the triple lock will have to go. It's a question of when, not if.

The average state pensioner has an income less than minimum wage.

Pensioners paid in via National Insurance all their lives to the Treasury, pensioners vote more than any other age group and pensioners will continue to increase as a share of the UK population with our low birthrate. So triple lock stays

But it will have to go eventually, won't it? If you have a ratchet on inflation, a ratchet on average wages, and a hard floor of 2.5%, and you leave that in place in perpetuity, eventually pensioners will own literally everything.

You might rationally see this as a correction to get the UK in line with other European countries. But it's not a policy that can be sustained forever. You need an exit strategy, not to turn the policy into a holy cow that can never be slaughtered.

No not everything, their heirs will inherit.

As I said anyway minimum wage is up by just as much as the state pension and someone working in the City of London for example will earn more than even the average private pension pensioner

"Working in the City of London." Cleaners? Nurses? Cooks? Security?

But of course these people *do not count* in Rich Pensioner Tory Land where all the workingt age people can do is sit on their thumbs waiting for mummy and daddy to die.