Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"
So now I just don't know.
Pause.
[runs away embarrassed]
A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant. The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
"It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.
It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.
Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."
Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.
The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
The test seems to be who is likely to die sooner, given no transplant? Oldies win presumably both on actuarial grounds and because of co morbidities. This is a scandal.
Which would be ridiculous and wrong. I'd hope and expect there's a less perverse explanation - not that I can supply it.
Different kinds of illness and urgency? As in liver transplants in younger people are prompted by illness that is less severe immediately and/or detected earlier?
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
Party rules. The Republican National Committee has final say on the rules for selection of party candidates and the convention has final say on which candidate gets picked. Indeed until the 1970s both main parties effectively selected their nominee in smoke filled rooms at the convention.
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial assumption is that younger people who require a liver transplant are perhaps disproportionately likely to do so because of alcohol abuse, and therefore have a higher risk of trashing any new liver they receive by transplant. So this would be a result of penalising people who are sick due to "lifestyle choices", as commonly advocated for obesity-related illnesses and others.
That's just an assumption, though. I can't otherwise make any sense of it.
Though the age bias only came about after the 2018 change in priority system, before then it was pretty even across the board (with a much smaller bias against 26-39 year olds which might be explained by what you suggested.
It seems the entire emphasis on the new priority system is effectively "who will die first without this liver" - so its going to older people. Not who will gain most years from this liver.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
But Trump is at his ceiling. If he does insist on running at the same time as fighting umpteen serious criminal indictments I expect this to erode his numbers. It only takes a few % for the polls to start showing he cannot realistically win. Things will happen politically then. Things not to his benefit. His route to the WH is incredibly rocky. Everything has to go his way. His price is way too short imo.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"
So now I just don't know.
Pause.
[runs away embarrassed]
A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant. The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"
So now I just don't know.
Pause.
[runs away embarrassed]
A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant. The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
Increasing the number of transplants = harvesting illegal immigrants, or a concerted campaign to get more people onto fast motorbikes. And abolish any silly rules about helmets.
Those for child recipients are significantly safer (1 in 1000 risk of death), as they harvest the smaller lobe of the liver.
‘Hey migrants, think not of what the country you want to move to can do for you but what you can do for it; one half liver = one UK citizenship.’
Lots of abstainers from alcohol in that demographic too I imagine.
Yes, my lifestyle choices are cunningly designed to ensure that, to my great regret, my altruistic offer to donate is likely to be rejected out of hand by the medics.
Me too. Trebles all round!
Wouldn’t that also put you at the bottom of the list for *receiving* a transplant?
Si Fi ref : where are the cartridge style replacement livers and kidneys we were promised? Get up, the lights gone red, unbox the new one (Thanks Amazon!), change over and put the old one in the right recycling bin…
My Calvinist spirit would see that as just desserts. Beautiful football players that they were, I don’t feel entirely positive about the liver transplants that George Best and Jim Baxter received (two livers in Baxter’s case).
I think the principle is not to punish past behaviour but to factor it in to likelihood of success - past drinking implies future drinking.
TBF to baxter his transplants were 4 days apart so presumably rejection first time round, rather than he wrecked the first one.
Ah, didn’t realise that was the case for Baxter, had a half remembered tabloid headline in my head. As I may have bored on in the past, I occasionally had a pint in the the pub Baxter frequented post transplant. He certainly ostentatiously drank orange juice with his steak pie and tattles.
Don’t have much experience of transplants but do of alcoholics. I have a feeling for many of the latter it would be hellishly difficult not to see (if only subconsciously) a new liver as a reason to start all over again.
As I understand it, after a transplant you will be on anti-rejection drugs for the rest of your life. Hence the interest in lab growing organs from samples from patients to avoid this.
If you start drinking heavily, I *believe* the drugs will fail.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
Most polling has Biden a touch ahead. And this is mid-term, before swingback. And in real elections the Dems have tended to outperform expectations recently.
The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.
Winchester disdains soccer and has its own ludicrous game
so relatively unlikely to have developed a passion for it there.
Public schools are mainly rugby union and cricket and a bit of tennis, squash and fencing or their own unique ball games like Rishi had at Winchester and William at Eton.
They will express an interest in soccer when it is good PR to connect with the masses but not really their natural game. Rishi is much more a cricket fan
It’s not quite like that. The older schools such as Eton, Winchester, Westminster and Charterhouse are “soccer” schools where rugby if played is a minority winter sport. Prince William was a keen “soccer” player at school and university. Cricket and tennis are obviously big but sports such as fives and rackets are bigger than squash. Water polo is also a popular sport weirdly.
I would guess that Rishi was a hockey player during the winter term as he would have got lost in the mud when playing Winchester football. Sadly he was in the other half of the school so I wouldn’t have been responsible for making his life hell teaching him Winchester football on a Wednesday on pitches that resemble the Somme.
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"
So now I just don't know.
Pause.
[runs away embarrassed]
A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant. The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
"It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.
It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.
Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."
Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.
The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
While I am not up in the latest developments in this, my father was deeply involved in the evolution of the QALYS and their use in U.K. medicine.
IIRC a major factor in decision about timing is severity of the disease, so the person most ill gets a lot of priority on that basis.
Again, IIRC, simply using x years of life would end some medical treatments for old people.
Puzzles me too, though more because I'd have thought that the degree of immune system match would override anything else? The one with a score of 98% match would win over one with a match of 96%, or something.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
Most polling has Biden a touch ahead. And this is mid-term, before swingback. And in real elections the Dems have tended to outperform expectations recently.
All of those are reasons why Biden should be favoured, but not by much.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
It is a bit of a catch 22 because those who rely on cash are generally the very elderly who are unlikely to be able to get to a cash machine in rural areas anyway even if within 3 miles (no longer drive, rubbish buses, etc). It was certainly an issue for my Dad before he died and he wasn't even in a rural area.
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial thought was "Younger people can afford to wait longer because they have less chance of death from other causes, so mutatis mutandis it goes to the older person first". But then I though "Hold on. Liver failure is very serious and I imagine it would override other death causes, so that wouldn't work"
So now I just don't know.
Pause.
[runs away embarrassed]
A long wait also tends to reduce the chances of a successful transplant. The algorithm appears to be effectively equalising the survival chances of a 20 year old with those of a 60 year old.
That doesn't seem quite right to me. Though it is a hard problem, really only solvable by increasing the number of transplants.
Is it possible they are trading the quality of the match vs ability to survive longer? So the younger people get a better match that is likely to last longer?
"It prioritises patients who are most likely to die soon, which in practice, tends to be older people.
It does that by looking at 21 recipient parameters, such as age, disease type and severity, and seven donor ones.
Then it gives a score. The higher the score, the more likely you are to get a liver soon."
Sounds as if age is an automatic uplift, when it ought to be an automatic downgrade.
Perhaps a better metric would be the likely number of years of life gained as a result of the transplant.
This should be the primary metric, how much value can we get from this organ that has been generously donated, shall we give it to the 70 year old who will die in 15-17 years or on the operating table or to a 40 year old who will live for another 40+ years and has a significantly lower chance of dying during the transplant.
The priorities of this country are completely fucked.
That's what happens, isn't it? The younger person (all else being equal) has priority?
The test seems to be who is likely to die sooner, given no transplant? Oldies win presumably both on actuarial grounds and because of co morbidities. This is a scandal.
Which would be ridiculous and wrong. I'd hope and expect there's a less perverse explanation - not that I can supply it.
Different kinds of illness and urgency? As in liver transplants in younger people are prompted by illness that is less severe immediately and/or detected earlier?
Maybe something like Lost Password said. The younger cohort have trashed the organ with drink and drugs and are judged likely to trash the new one similarly.
The politically astute move for Sunak would be to tough it out and fly to Sydney and back in Economy class within a week. That would show people he's game for a laugh and gives a shit about sport. Because, so far, his attempts at appearing sportspilled have been incredibly awkward and synthetic.
Winchester disdains soccer and has its own ludicrous game
so relatively unlikely to have developed a passion for it there.
Public schools are mainly rugby union and cricket and a bit of tennis, squash and fencing or their own unique ball games like Rishi had at Winchester and William at Eton.
They will express an interest in soccer when it is good PR to connect with the masses but not really their natural game. Rishi is much more a cricket fan
It’s not quite like that. The older schools such as Eton, Winchester, Westminster and Charterhouse are “soccer” schools where rugby if played is a minority winter sport. Prince William was a keen “soccer” player at school and university. Cricket and tennis are obviously big but sports such as fives and rackets are bigger than squash. Water polo is also a popular sport weirdly.
I would guess that Rishi was a hockey player during the winter term as he would have got lost in the mud when playing Winchester football. Sadly he was in the other half of the school so I wouldn’t have been responsible for making his life hell teaching him Winchester football on a Wednesday on pitches that resemble the Somme.
Yup. At my school, soccer, rugby and cricket were the default team games. With a bit of hockey. You were encouraged to try other sports, and there would be a general track and field thing once a year.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
But Trump is at his ceiling. If he does insist on running at the same time as fighting umpteen serious criminal indictments I expect this to erode his numbers. It only takes a few % for the polls to start showing he cannot realistically win. Things will happen politically then. Things not to his benefit. His route to the WH is incredibly rocky. Everything has to go his way. His price is way too short imo.
45% of the voters would support a pug ape with a Republican or Democratic label, so polarised is the population. The swing vote is very small.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
Party rules. The Republican National Committee has final say on the rules for selection of party candidates and the convention has final say on which candidate gets picked. Indeed until the 1970s both main parties effectively selected their nominee in smoke filled rooms at the convention.
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
Even if the RNC could do that without causing a riot in the party, you do know it's stuffed with Trump's stooges, don't you?
They even supported the attempted coup at the Capitol.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
Second named mid-latitude Atlantic storm of the winter and it's only August 18th!
Storm Betty is coming for the Irish south coast overnight.
Ah, no, they start the storm season in September - so we actually went a whole winter without a named storm, or at least one named by the Irish, UK or Dutch weather services.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
But how are the over 70s going to dodge taxes and run large drug empires without cash?
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
How rural are you talking ?
Langold has a population of 2,603 according to wiki. I think every village One-Stop (Are they all One-Stops these days ?) ought to have an ATM. The one in Carlton (Next village down) isn't even a hole in the wall, it's a machine inside the shop. Perhaps the requirement needs relaxing for some very rural areas ?
The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.
Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.
Wembley
Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.
I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
You obviously have little idea of the flight time to Sydney which we have actually done and it is around 22 hours and 50 minutes each way
However there are various carriers flying the route daily and a way would be found on a commercial airline but the Palace have little or no political antenna in not getting William there
I am proud of England's women's team achievement in reaching the final and there would be no doubt William would be there if it was the mens
The women have a justified case to say they are not being recognised, not only in their wages at the highest level, but by this singularly ill-conceived slight to them
Mind you Australia will become a republic in no time and I expect the royals do not want to be booed
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
From casual observation in the queue at Sainbury's, it is mostly middle-aged women paying with cash.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 42 love in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 42 love in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs
It's an interesting perspective. Essentially good on the government for believing the state needs to intervene in the markets to support the disadvantaged, rather than letting supply and demand determine provision. It's certainly not Thatcherite.
A reason we need a new balanced scorecard on political ideologies that goes beyond the over-simplistic political compass. Watch this space
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
I’m honestly shocked you take this point of view since your party seems to blow up everything else traditional about society.
This is a complete and utter waste of time. I haven’t carried cash in 10 years.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
Most polling has Biden a touch ahead. And this is mid-term, before swingback. And in real elections the Dems have tended to outperform expectations recently.
The contrarian view:
(1) Trump's support tends to get under-reported as opposed to that of the GOP generally (excluding Rasmussen et al). That happened in 2020.
(2) Biden needs to be ahead in the popular vote by several points because of the swing state effect / voter distribution etc. So being equal or even +1/+2 is not good enough.
(3) As a reminder, the number of votes that needed to change to have Trump win GA, WI and AZ in 2020 was ridiculously small. And because their Electoral College count has changed, if Trump wins all three, he would have a clear majority of EV votes.
I'll also mention one other factor which might be a factor given the tightness in key states but I'm struggling to work out if and by how much. Unlike 2020, when it was adding jobs by the bucketload, Tech has been shedding thousands of jobs. The rise of Tech jobs was mentioned as a factor as to why certain states such as NC were becoming more D-leaning.
I think it’s good that there is reasonable access to ATMs, but I’d note that this is essentially a tax on incumbent retail banks. 3 miles also seems excessively stringent.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
Party rules. The Republican National Committee has final say on the rules for selection of party candidates and the convention has final say on which candidate gets picked. Indeed until the 1970s both main parties effectively selected their nominee in smoke filled rooms at the convention.
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
Even if the RNC could do that without causing a riot in the party, you do know it's stuffed with Trump's stooges, don't you?
They even supported the attempted coup at the Capitol.
Evidence? Even the likes of Ted Cruz and McConnell condemned the violence at the Capitol. The RNC is made up of the party establishment not Trump diehards
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial assumption is that younger people who require a liver transplant are perhaps disproportionately likely to do so because of alcohol abuse, and therefore have a higher risk of trashing any new liver they receive by transplant. So this would be a result of penalising people who are sick due to "lifestyle choices", as commonly advocated for obesity-related illnesses and others.
That's just an assumption, though. I can't otherwise make any sense of it.
Though the age bias only came about after the 2018 change in priority system, before then it was pretty even across the board (with a much smaller bias against 26-39 year olds which might be explained by what you suggested.
It seems the entire emphasis on the new priority system is effectively "who will die first without this liver" - so its going to older people. Not who will gain most years from this liver.
Thanks for doing the digging to find the change.
I guess the question then is, we can see what the change means in terms of waiting times, but is there any data on what the change has done in terms of survival rates?
If the impact of waiting a bit longer on survival rates for the young is small enough then the overall change could still be good, although I suppose there's still the question of how much more you might value a year of someone's life when they're, say, 43, and are, for example, more likely to have dependent children, compared to 63, when they're less likely to do so.
What about a policy to have mobile coverage on all rail routes like France or Germany are doing. Would do a lot more for productivity and society than this pointless policy.
The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.
Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.
Wembley
Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.
I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
You obviously have little idea of the flight time to Sydney which we have actually done and it is around 22 hours and 50 minutes each way
However there are various carriers flying the route daily and a way would be found on a commercial airline but the Palace have little or no political antenna in not getting William there
I am proud of England's women's team achievement in reaching the final and there would be no doubt William would be there if it was the mens
The women have a justified case to say they are not being recognised, not only in their wages at the highest level, but by this singularly ill-conceived slight to them
Mind you Australia will become a republic in no time and I expect the royals do not want to be booed
Rubbish.
The Wales' didn't attend a single mens' game at the Qatar World Cup either. Given on present polls Australia may well reject even a vote to allow Aborigines a voice in the Australian Parliament in the autumn referendum, a result which would be as divisive as Brexit was here, the idea it has any momentuk to get the clear majority and 2/3 of states to become a republic anytime soon is absurd. In 1999 anyway Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
I am surprised to find that I am within 2.6 miles, as the crow flies, from an ATM.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 42 love in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs
It's an interesting perspective. Essentially good on the government for believing the state needs to intervene in the markets to support the disadvantaged, rather than letting supply and demand determine provision. It's certainly not Thatcherite.
A reason we need a new balanced scorecard on political ideologies that goes beyond the over-simplistic political compass. Watch this space
So what? The Conservative Party should be precisely that, not a let the market rip at all times. That is more Orange Book LD ideologically
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
Party rules. The Republican National Committee has final say on the rules for selection of party candidates and the convention has final say on which candidate gets picked. Indeed until the 1970s both main parties effectively selected their nominee in smoke filled rooms at the convention.
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
Even if the RNC could do that without causing a riot in the party, you do know it's stuffed with Trump's stooges, don't you?
They even supported the attempted coup at the Capitol.
Evidence? Even the likes of Ted Cruz and McConnell condemned the violence at the Capitol. The RNC is made up of the party establishment not Trump diehards
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
I think some people have been overly influenced by Logan's Run.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
Most polling has Biden a touch ahead. And this is mid-term, before swingback. And in real elections the Dems have tended to outperform expectations recently.
And 'racketeer' Trump will have his criminal cases running. I know every charge and revelation only makes his base dig in more but his base isn't nearly enough for him to win the presidency. There'll surely be a slide against him amongst the type of uncommitted voters who will decide the election in November.
So what happens politically when the polls start to show he's a dead duck candidate if they choose him? It's a tough one for the GOP. Go with him and lose? Unite their not-Trump wing around someone else? (and risk him and his supporters going ape and trashing the place). Don't know. They really are in the shit.
Good bets imo are laying him for the WH and backing generic Dem. Far from Trump v Biden being nailed on I can see neither featuring.
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
Rubbish, inflation falling certainly helps people like you
The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.
Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.
Wembley
Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.
I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
You obviously have little idea of the flight time to Sydney which we have actually done and it is around 22 hours and 50 minutes each way
However there are various carriers flying the route daily and a way would be found on a commercial airline but the Palace have little or no political antenna in not getting William there
I am proud of England's women's team achievement in reaching the final and there would be no doubt William would be there if it was the mens
The women have a justified case to say they are not being recognised, not only in their wages at the highest level, but by this singularly ill-conceived slight to them
Mind you Australia will become a republic in no time and I expect the royals do not want to be booed
Rubbish.
The Wales' didn't attend a single mens' game at the Qatar World Cup either. Given on present polls Australia may well reject even a vote to allow Aborigines a voice in the Australian Parliament in the autumn referendum, a result which would be as divisive as Brexit was here, the idea it has any momentuk to get the clear majority and 2/3 of states to become a republic anytime soon is absurd. In 1999 anyway Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy
This is a Final and the first since 1966
And as far as a Republic is concerned Australia will become one and it says something when you quote a poll from 24 years ago
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
Even 30% while not enough to win a general election is enough to influence the GOP. However if Trump is jailed and convicted then the RNC will change the rules to stop convicted criminals being their candidate and select a new candidate at the convention, even if he won the nomination those delegates can be reallocated as the candidate is only formally chosen at the convention
You keep saying this. I am not sure they have the ability to if the wider party is opposed. Can you explain your reasoning?
Party rules. The Republican National Committee has final say on the rules for selection of party candidates and the convention has final say on which candidate gets picked. Indeed until the 1970s both main parties effectively selected their nominee in smoke filled rooms at the convention.
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
Even if the RNC could do that without causing a riot in the party, you do know it's stuffed with Trump's stooges, don't you?
They even supported the attempted coup at the Capitol.
Evidence? Even the likes of Ted Cruz and McConnell condemned the violence at the Capitol. The RNC is made up of the party establishment not Trump diehards
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
I'd prefer University education to be a freebie like in my day, however with the increase in student numbers and the need for a compromise, £10,500 per three year course seems a reasonable contribution to fees. Isn't the current figure now £28,500 for a three year degree?
What about a policy to have mobile coverage on all rail routes like France or Germany are doing. Would do a lot more for productivity and society than this pointless policy.
Aye, I lost a game of Hearthstone the other day due to not being able to maintain connectivity.
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
One of the supermarkets that is surprisingly close to me in what I thought was an extremely rural area, has recently been refurbished and the new manned tills have a bucket for counting coins and a slot the cashier feeds notes into, rather than a box that opens up with all the notes and coins in separate sections. Presumably, like the robo-tills, it automatically dispenses the right amount of change when required, though the person ahead of me in the queue yesterday laboriously counted out exact change, so I haven't seen that yet.
I did hear of someone who insisted on being paid in cash for their house, but I think the story is from the 1960s...
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't necessarily. As I said it is a catch 22. It will cost the banks a lot and yet provide little benefit as cash m/c will still be out of reach for many who really need them, but then what are these people going to do if they rely on cash and can't get it? Difficult.
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
The Prince and/or Prime Minister should go to the World Cup Final because England is playing in the Women's World Cup Final. You get used to the political tin ear of the Royal Family; I am more surprised Rishi is not going.
Agree. This just looks such an easy win for them, and him. And conversely, a real slight to the team.
Wembley
Rishi would 100% be going in a footie shirt (boy's size age 8-12) if it were the men's WC final. Australia or not.
I suspect Baldy and "Hatchet Face" (lol) know they would get booed as Ingerland knocked Straya out a few days ago and so don't like the optics.
Why he will be King of both in due course and the royals tweeted congratulations to both teams. He can watch the match in London on TV he is next head of state not a glorified team mascot
That didn't keep HMQ away from Wembley in 1966.
Wembley was not a 12 hour flight away and back
You obviously have little idea of the flight time to Sydney which we have actually done and it is around 22 hours and 50 minutes each way
However there are various carriers flying the route daily and a way would be found on a commercial airline but the Palace have little or no political antenna in not getting William there
I am proud of England's women's team achievement in reaching the final and there would be no doubt William would be there if it was the mens
The women have a justified case to say they are not being recognised, not only in their wages at the highest level, but by this singularly ill-conceived slight to them
Mind you Australia will become a republic in no time and I expect the royals do not want to be booed
Rubbish.
The Wales' didn't attend a single mens' game at the Qatar World Cup either. Given on present polls Australia may well reject even a vote to allow Aborigines a voice in the Australian Parliament in the autumn referendum, a result which would be as divisive as Brexit was here, the idea it has any momentuk to get the clear majority and 2/3 of states to become a republic anytime soon is absurd. In 1999 anyway Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy
This is a Final and the first since 1966
And as far as a Republic is concerned Australia will become one and it says something when you quote a poll from 24 years ago
It was a referendum 24 years ago that voted to retain the monarchy and Australia has the Voice referendum in the autumn. If that fails sod all chance even this Labor government will risk a monarchy referendum any time soon
No, it's far too calm on here and on the whole everyone is playing nicely. Although there was a chap on last evening who claimed he knows Leon. He seemed nice enough.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
One of the supermarkets that is surprisingly close to me in what I thought was an extremely rural area, has recently been refurbished and the new manned tills have a bucket for counting coins and a slot the cashier feeds notes into, rather than a box that opens up with all the notes and coins in separate sections. Presumably, like the robo-tills, it automatically dispenses the right amount of change when required, though the person ahead of me in the queue yesterday laboriously counted out exact change, so I haven't seen that yet.
I did hear of someone who insisted on being paid in cash for their house, but I think the story is from the 1960s...
The demise of cash is unlikely to happen for many reasons and it is not just the elderly who use it, indeed I expect it is widely used across society
As for paying cash for a house that would alert enormous red lines in the banking system and best not to be considered
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't necessarily. As I said it is a catch 22. It will cost the banks a lot and yet provide little benefit as cash m/c will still be out of reach for many who really need them, but then what are these people going to do if they rely on cash and can't get it? Difficult.
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
Shops, church collections, eating out, drinks there is plenty you can use cash for. Plus you can't even see bank staff in person now in many areas as they keep shutting branches
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't necessarily. As I said it is a catch 22. It will cost the banks a lot and yet provide little benefit as cash m/c will still be out of reach for many who really need them, but then what are these people going to do if they rely on cash and can't get it? Difficult.
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
Shops, church collections, eating out, drinks there is plenty you can use cash for. Plus you can't even see bank staff in person now in many areas as they keep shutting branches
In the course of this thread you seem to have leaped from 41 to 70yrs old. Have you recently bought a Jag online from eBay by any chance also?
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I am sick to death of people on here who insist being a conservative means being a free marketeer. NO.
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
One of the supermarkets that is surprisingly close to me in what I thought was an extremely rural area, has recently been refurbished and the new manned tills have a bucket for counting coins and a slot the cashier feeds notes into, rather than a box that opens up with all the notes and coins in separate sections. Presumably, like the robo-tills, it automatically dispenses the right amount of change when required, though the person ahead of me in the queue yesterday laboriously counted out exact change, so I haven't seen that yet.
I did hear of someone who insisted on being paid in cash for their house, but I think the story is from the 1960s...
The demise of cash is unlikely to happen for many reasons and it is not just the elderly who use it, indeed I expect it is widely used across society
As for paying cash for a house that would alert enormous red lines in the banking system and best not to be considered
If I were an incoming Government that wanted to tighten up on the grey economy I would go cashless. Making tax-free cash hobbles more difficult would surely increase the tax take.
What about a policy to have mobile coverage on all rail routes like France or Germany are doing. Would do a lot more for productivity and society than this pointless policy.
Aye, I lost a game of Hearthstone the other day due to not being able to maintain connectivity.
It would have been very useful if I'd been able to use my hotspot to my laptop to take my work calls but the coverage is so woeful I wasn't able to and I had to work late into the night instead.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't necessarily. As I said it is a catch 22. It will cost the banks a lot and yet provide little benefit as cash m/c will still be out of reach for many who really need them, but then what are these people going to do if they rely on cash and can't get it? Difficult.
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
Over the last few years all tradespeople I deal with are paid by bank transfer, usually as they leave having completed the assignment, and they really like it
I will not employ anyone anymore who seeks cash, but that does not mean I do not see cash being used by many millions for a very long time to come
Everything that's wrong with the NHS summed up in a single chart:
60+ year olds being prioritised for organ transplants over working age people. Mental.
My initial assumption is that younger people who require a liver transplant are perhaps disproportionately likely to do so because of alcohol abuse, and therefore have a higher risk of trashing any new liver they receive by transplant. So this would be a result of penalising people who are sick due to "lifestyle choices", as commonly advocated for obesity-related illnesses and others.
That's just an assumption, though. I can't otherwise make any sense of it.
The article says:
“ They tend to be born with liver disease or to have developed it early in life.
He says: "It's not something they've done through drinking, drugs, or lifestyle. This is something that they haven't asked for.”
It (usually) takes quite a while for alcoholism to trash your liver.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I am sick to death of people on here who insist being a conservative means being a free marketeer. NO.
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
Rubbish. You cannot declare what you want Conservatives to be because when it came down to it, and they went along a path in 2016 that you fundamentally disagreed with you caved and said that was true Conservatism.
So what you think is or isn't important to be a conservative is meaningless.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I am sick to death of people on here who insist being a conservative means being a free marketeer. NO.
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
It will be the only way to gamble soon without all the daft affordability checks
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
Rubbish, inflation falling certainly helps people like you
Yeah, prices rising by 7% rather than 8% is fantastic news. Something to base a GE campaign on.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
From casual observation in the queue at Sainbury's, it is mostly middle-aged women paying with cash.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
North Essex and Suffolk came to mind. There's one ATM in the small town where I live, and going North or West there's quite a lot of empty space, commercially speaking.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I am sick to death of people on here who insist being a conservative means being a free marketeer. NO.
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
Oh, so you don't think Mrs T was a Tory?
*puzzled*
Thatcher was more a Gladstone Liberal than Disraeli Tory certainly.
Just since the 20th century the Conservative Party contains both Gladstone Liberals and Disraeli Tories to keep out Labour
A new improved political compass, in the binary letter-combo style of Myers Briggs. Covering the 6 principal faultlines in British politics and ideology (or at least on PB):
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit R = remain
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
But Trump is at his ceiling. If he does insist on running at the same time as fighting umpteen serious criminal indictments I expect this to erode his numbers. It only takes a few % for the polls to start showing he cannot realistically win. Things will happen politically then. Things not to his benefit. His route to the WH is incredibly rocky. Everything has to go his way. His price is way too short imo.
45% of the voters would support a pug ape with a Republican or Democratic label, so polarised is the population. The swing vote is very small.
But decisive, and Trump's share of it will be down on where it was when he lost in 2020. Even if he gets the nomination (which I rather doubt) I can't see how he wins in November unless he and the GOP do some serious and widespread 'racketeering' on the voting process. It could happen, he could somehow make it, but it's all rather far-fetched imo. 3.6 is nuts.
On a cashless society and as a pensioner closing in on 80 I haven't used cash for a very long time, nor does my wife, but today she went to the hairdresser and paid with her card but found a few pounds in lose change for a tip
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
I think some people have been overly influenced by Logan's Run.
I was certainly very… influenced by Jenny Agutter in Logan’s Run.
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
Rubbish, inflation falling certainly helps people like you
I forgot. In your iteration of the Conservative Party inflation is not cumulative. How stupid of me (and Horse).
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
No it goes to banks who sut branches too and who fail to provide ATMs in the area even if they don't have one now
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
Rubbish, inflation falling certainly helps people like you
Yeah, prices rising by 7% rather than 8% is fantastic news. Something to base a GE campaign on.
If I showed the same obfuscation of a variable, its integral, and the first or second order differentials, I'd never have got my Maths A-level.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
You seem to think I was disagreeing with you. I wasn't necessarily. As I said it is a catch 22. It will cost the banks a lot and yet provide little benefit as cash m/c will still be out of reach for many who really need them, but then what are these people going to do if they rely on cash and can't get it? Difficult.
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
Shops, church collections, eating out, drinks there is plenty you can use cash for. Plus you can't even see bank staff in person now in many areas as they keep shutting branches
Just to show we are not that far apart I liked @Big_G_NorthWales post on the subject and noticed there was one other like. It was from you @HYUFD . As I said I am conflicted.
However re your list I don't go to church, but regarding the others they all take cards/phones and many refuse cash. As I said you can't use cash in an Adnams pub and many shops now. As I also mentioned even most fete stalls take cards/phone. I went to the Cranleigh car show at the weekend, run by the Lions. All card transactions. A local converted milk float at a location we walk the dog to which sells tea and coffee in the middle of nowhere. All card transactions.
Why would you use cash if you didn't have to? I mean why would you? What possible advantage is there?
And I agree this is a problem for those that are too old to use cards. It is a real problem for them to get the cash in the first place and a problem that they are excluded from purchasing stuff from place that refuse it.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
But Trump is at his ceiling. If he does insist on running at the same time as fighting umpteen serious criminal indictments I expect this to erode his numbers. It only takes a few % for the polls to start showing he cannot realistically win. Things will happen politically then. Things not to his benefit. His route to the WH is incredibly rocky. Everything has to go his way. His price is way too short imo.
45% of the voters would support a pug ape with a Republican or Democratic label, so polarised is the population. The swing vote is very small.
But decisive, and Trump's share of it will be down on where it was when he lost in 2020. Even if he gets the nomination (which I rather doubt) I can't see how he wins in November unless he and the GOP do some serious and widespread 'racketeering' on the voting process. It could happen, he could somehow make it, but it's all rather far-fetched imo. 3.6 is nuts.
I suppose there are 2 contradictory forces in swing voters:
1. toleration of / disgust with Trump: I think many swing voters will be hardened against him after the shenanigans of 2020 2. dissatisfaction with the incumbent: last time Trump was the unpopular incumbent. Now he's the challenger again - people may have forgotten just was an ineffectual president he was
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
From casual observation in the queue at Sainbury's, it is mostly middle-aged women paying with cash.
The wives of dodgy tradesmen?
Absolutely no idea. Otoh, I dimly recall paying in cash being advocated as a budgeting "hack" to help reduce spending.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
No it goes to banks who sut branches too and who fail to provide ATMs in the area even if they don't have one now
That doesn't make sense. All bank branches have ATMs anyway so "shut a branch and don't have an ATM" is an emopty set.
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
They never made the fees unaffordable as your lot have done.
They were going to, Mr Bat. Don't you remember? Labour set up a commission to review the level of their top-up fees, and promised to implement whatever the commission came up with.
Then Labour lost the general election, and the Coalition Government took over. The Tories, of course, wanted to raise top-up fees to £15,000 or thereabouts, Labour were supposedly committed to £9000. The Lib Dems, in government, held the increase down to £9000, and were blamed most unjustly by everybody for the increase.
It's an unfair world, of course, but really Labour ought to have taken the blame for all the tuition fees problem.
Instead of red tape for pointless cash machines how about doing something about tuition fees which most people will now never pay off and will still be paying into their 50s?
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Who introduced tuition fees? New Labour
True, though misleading. The fees came in (initially at £1k/pa IIRC), in response to the Dearing Report which was commissioned by Tories, towards the end of the 1992-97 parliament.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
More costly red tape to assuage the fears of the over 70's.
I think we are talking of much older than that even. I am 68 and cashless as are everyone I know in my age group
Well I am 41 live in a rural area and often carry cash.
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
How very unConservative of you wanting the govt to intervene in how companies run their businesses.
I am sick to death of people on here who insist being a conservative means being a free marketeer. NO.
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
Oh, so you don't think Mrs T was a Tory?
*puzzled*
Thatcher was more a Gladstone Liberal than Disraeli Tory certainly.
Just since the 20th century the Conservative Party contains both Gladstone Liberals and Disraeli Tories to keep out Labour
Obviously Mrs T wasn't the right sort of Tory. Definitely not "one of us". Doesn't count today.
1) I think the advert shows Biden's mischievous sense of humour, as much as anything else.
2) Trump is beginning to look like a busted flush anyway. Polling suggests 70% of Americans think these charges show he is unfit to be president. If he is the Republican candidate and those numbers played out, it would be the heaviest defeat in terms of the popular vote they have ever suffered (although I imagine enough states will still vote for him regardless of what he does to avoid the humiliation suffered by the hapless Alf Landon in 1936).
3) That being said, if he still gets the Republican nomination despite all this, where do the Republicans go from here? They will have picked a failure, who was chiefly famous for vote rigging, deeply unpopular with the public and totally isolated from the political mainstream. Will they be able to recover under Haley or Christie to be a serious political force again, or will they go the way of the Whigs?
The polling has Trump and Biden neck and neck. Plenty of people will vote for Trump because they hate the Democrats more.
But Trump is at his ceiling. If he does insist on running at the same time as fighting umpteen serious criminal indictments I expect this to erode his numbers. It only takes a few % for the polls to start showing he cannot realistically win. Things will happen politically then. Things not to his benefit. His route to the WH is incredibly rocky. Everything has to go his way. His price is way too short imo.
45% of the voters would support a pug ape with a Republican or Democratic label, so polarised is the population. The swing vote is very small.
But decisive, and Trump's share of it will be down on where it was when he lost in 2020. Even if he gets the nomination (which I rather doubt) I can't see how he wins in November unless he and the GOP do some serious and widespread 'racketeering' on the voting process. It could happen, he could somehow make it, but it's all rather far-fetched imo. 3.6 is nuts.
I think that is reflecting more your bias than anything else. He made inroads into the Hispanic and even Black (male) vote. His support amongst white working class voters seems undiminished - look at his rallies. Sure, suburbanites have moved against him but will the future swings be the same as the past? And in all the noise about the failures re the House, it gets forgotten the GOP was ahead by 2-3% in the midterms.
So, we can't say his share of the vote will be down. It might be so but so might Biden's - if Cornel West runs for the Greens and there is a genuine third party candidate, it is easy to see Biden being more impacted than Trump.
Also, I think your statement that "I can't see how he wins in November unless he and the GOP do some serious and widespread 'racketeering' on the voting process." is probably shared in D-circles in the United States but it has serious threatening implications for democracy. What you are essentially saying is that, even Trump 'wins', it is legitimate NOT to accept him as President because there is no way he could have won legitimately. In which case, not sure how that is different from election denying...
A new improved political compass, in the binary letter-combo style of Myers Briggs. Covering the 6 principal faultlines in British politics and ideology (or at least on PB):
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit R = remain
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
SWEYHR, though in outside of Russia/Ukraine I'm more D. M/S I am boringly close to the middle, but tip socialist a little.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
No it goes to banks who sut branches too and who fail to provide ATMs in the area even if they don't have one now
That doesn't make sense. All bank branches have ATMs anyway so "shut a branch and don't have an ATM" is an emopty set.
I’ve been into a bank branch that didn’t have an ATM. Rare, but they occur.
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
No it goes to banks who sut branches too and who fail to provide ATMs in the area even if they don't have one now
So a bank could be fined for not providing an ATM in an area where they've never had an ATM? Would that apply to all financial institutions, including the fintech banks? What about a building society that only operates in one region of the country, will it be fined for not having an ATM at the other end of the country?
I think that's sensible. I'm 1.2 miles from the nearest cashpoint, and exactly 3 miles from a second if that one is out of service. Should be feasible for the whole of England, perhaps some tricky cases in the Scottish Highlands.
Have you any idea of how many additional ATM's that would mean in rural Northumberland? I was living 1.5 miles from the nearest shop let alone ATM. That was 4 plus. And I was in the relatively well populated Tyne Valley.
Well banks can now be fined by the FCA if they don't provide a branch or ATM within 3 miles in rural areas
How does that work? They can simply say "not me, chum, some other bank can do it".
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So does the fine go to the people who are the last to close an ATM in an area then?
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
No it goes to banks who sut branches too and who fail to provide ATMs in the area even if they don't have one now
That doesn't make sense. All bank branches have ATMs anyway so "shut a branch and don't have an ATM" is an emopty set.
I’ve been into a bank branch that didn’t have an ATM. Rare, but they occur.
Ah, thanks. I did wonder, but couldn't think of any. But, most of the time, most places, that'll apply. So the problem remains (and also whether FCA will even fine the bank more than 51p in cash).
A new improved political compass, in the binary letter-combo style of Myers Briggs. Covering the 6 principal faultlines in British politics and ideology (or at least on PB):
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit R = remain [rejoin]
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
M--YHR.
Too close to neutral for Qs 2/3 for an answer/identity; elements of both.
Comments
If the Republican National Committee changes the party rules to make convicted criminals in jail ineligible from being the party nominee before the convention the convention would have to pick a new candidate and Trump's delegates be reallocated to say Pence or Cruz
I Googled the 2018 priority system and found this 2018 article: https://britishlivertrust.org.uk/new-system-liver-transplant/
It seems the entire emphasis on the new priority system is effectively "who will die first without this liver" - so its going to older people. Not who will gain most years from this liver.
If you start drinking heavily, I *believe* the drugs will fail.
I would guess that Rishi was a hockey player during the winter term as he would have got lost in the mud when playing Winchester football. Sadly he was in the other half of the school so I wouldn’t have been responsible for making his life hell teaching him Winchester football on a Wednesday on pitches that resemble the Somme.
But IANATD.
Some rural areas, you'd almost be lucky to have a *commercial building* to put an ATM in.
https://twitter.com/daviesbj/status/1692479811610919102
Don't know the answer.
Storm Betty is coming for the Irish south coast overnight.
They even supported the attempted coup at the Capitol.
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/weather/warnings-and-advice/uk-storm-centre/index
Main site still seems to be working.
Edit - and as I type that, it resolves itself...
The Tories must go. Their priorities are helping the over 70s not anyone that actually works.
Langold has a population of 2,603 according to wiki. I think every village One-Stop (Are they all One-Stops these days ?) ought to have an ATM. The one in Carlton (Next village down) isn't even a hole in the wall, it's a machine inside the shop. Perhaps the requirement needs relaxing for some very rural areas ?
However there are various carriers flying the route daily and a way would be found on a commercial airline but the Palace have little or no political antenna in not getting William there
I am proud of England's women's team achievement in reaching the final and there would be no doubt William would be there if it was the mens
The women have a justified case to say they are not being recognised, not only in their wages at the highest level, but by this singularly ill-conceived slight to them
Mind you Australia will become a republic in no time and I expect the royals do not want to be booed
Good on the government for acting like a conservative government to stop banks needlessly shutting branches and ATMs in market towns and suburbs. I am also fed up of constantly spending ages on the phone going through umpteen passwords and being put on hold rather than being able to speak to someone in a branch in person!
A reason we need a new balanced scorecard on political ideologies that goes beyond the over-simplistic political compass. Watch this space
This is a complete and utter waste of time. I haven’t carried cash in 10 years.
(1) Trump's support tends to get under-reported as opposed to that of the GOP generally (excluding Rasmussen et al). That happened in 2020.
(2) Biden needs to be ahead in the popular vote by several points because of the swing state effect / voter distribution etc. So being equal or even +1/+2 is not good enough.
(3) As a reminder, the number of votes that needed to change to have Trump win GA, WI and AZ in 2020 was ridiculously small. And because their Electoral College count has changed, if Trump wins all three, he would have a clear majority of EV votes.
I'll also mention one other factor which might be a factor given the tightness in key states but I'm struggling to work out if and by how much. Unlike 2020, when it was adding jobs by the bucketload, Tech has been shedding thousands of jobs. The rise of Tech jobs was mentioned as a factor as to why certain states such as NC were becoming more D-leaning.
I guess the question then is, we can see what the change means in terms of waiting times, but is there any data on what the change has done in terms of survival rates?
If the impact of waiting a bit longer on survival rates for the young is small enough then the overall change could still be good, although I suppose there's still the question of how much more you might value a year of someone's life when they're, say, 43, and are, for example, more likely to have dependent children, compared to 63, when they're less likely to do so.
The Wales' didn't attend a single mens' game at the Qatar World Cup either. Given on present polls Australia may well reject even a vote to allow Aborigines a voice in the Australian Parliament in the autumn referendum, a result which would be as divisive as Brexit was here, the idea it has any momentuk to get the clear majority and 2/3 of states to become a republic anytime soon is absurd. In 1999 anyway Australians voted 55% to keep the monarchy
There does seem to be antagonistic attitude to the elderly from some quarters, but ask their families how they love and treasure them and you will receive a very different response
I expect cash will play a role for many years to come and not just by the elderly
There’s nothing antagonistic about saying that a policy that only benefits the elderly when there are actual problems impacting people under 75 go un-resolved.
The Tories do not care about people like me and they are ensuring they’ll never win with my age group ever again. You are overseeing your own extinction. Well done.
Nope the FCA can now fine any bank which shuts a branch in a market town or suburb or fails to provide an ATM in them either, no excuse
So what happens politically when the polls start to show he's a dead duck candidate if they choose him? It's a tough one for the GOP. Go with him and lose? Unite their not-Trump wing around someone else? (and risk him and his supporters going ape and trashing the place). Don't know. They really are in the shit.
Good bets imo are laying him for the WH and backing generic Dem. Far from Trump v Biden being nailed on I can see neither featuring.
And as far as a Republic is concerned Australia will become one and it says something when you quote a poll from 24 years ago
Thanks for the confirmation
I did hear of someone who insisted on being paid in cash for their house, but I think the story is from the 1960s...
Out of interest though what on earth do you do with the cash you carry? We only use cash for 2 things now; my infrequent haircuts (£12) and the more frequent dog grooming (£50) [You can tell who is more important in this house].
I use cash for nothing else and most people don't want it. Our window cleaner and gardener don't take it (bank trf), all the pop up stalls at fetes and such like all use those little white m/cs. Many places refuse cash now. You can't use cash in an Adnams pub for instance.
Much as I like to see the disappearance of cash it does exclude people which is an issue.
This could lead to a rush not to be the last institution with an ATM in the area, and face being trapped doing so indefinitely.
As for paying cash for a house that would alert enormous red lines in the banking system and best not to be considered
In the 19th century it was the Liberals the free market party, the Tories were protectionist, the free market liberals only largely joined with the Tories in the 20th century so today's Conservative Party could keep out socialism and Labour. Tories are supposed to preserve rural areas and tradition and things like bank branches
I will not employ anyone anymore who seeks cash, but that does not mean I do not see cash being used by many millions for a very long time to come
So what you think is or isn't important to be a conservative is meaningless.
*puzzled*
Just since the 20th century the Conservative Party contains both Gladstone Liberals and Disraeli Tories to keep out Labour
Like Myers-Briggs, a forced preference - you have to fall on one side or other rather than claiming to be in the centre or that it depends.
1. Economics, which instead of left vs right I would define as socialised vs market. The extremes on each side being freewheeling market fundamentalism and communism, but in Britain more a case of believing in more or less state intervention in the economy:
S = socialised
M = market
2. Social and identity politics: traditionalist/authoritarian vs liberal. Are you woke or anti-woke? Should we topple statues of slavers? Do we need a lavatory tsar and so on.
W = woke
A = anti-woke
3. Green politics: are you an eco-warrior who wants us all on our bikes, stopping drilling in the North Sea and installing heat pumps, or are you a petrolhead who upholds everyone's right to keep 3 gas guzzlers in the cul-de-sac, thinks LTNs are the spawn of the devil, and wonders if the climate crisis stuff isn't just a tad overwrought.
E = eco-warrior
P = petrolhead
4. Nimby vs Yimby. Should we concrete over the green belt and build build build because the country needs infrastructure, or protect what remains of our green and pleasant land?
N = nimby
Y = yimby
5. Russia and Ukraine: are you a hawk or a dove? Do you despair of keyboard toy soldiers bloodthirstily escalating until the last Ukrainian / global thermonuclear war, and understand Russia's historical concerns on NATO expansion and the rights of Russian speakers in Donbas? Or do you see Putin as a fascist thug who must be defeated to avoid greater problems down the line?
D = dove
H = hawk
6. Brexit or remain. In or out?
B = Brexit
R = remain
As of today I am MWEYHR, although a couple of those are marginal (S/M and N/Y).
However re your list I don't go to church, but regarding the others they all take cards/phones and many refuse cash. As I said you can't use cash in an Adnams pub and many shops now. As I also mentioned even most fete stalls take cards/phone. I went to the Cranleigh car show at the weekend, run by the Lions. All card transactions. A local converted milk float at a location we walk the dog to which sells tea and coffee in the middle of nowhere. All card transactions.
Why would you use cash if you didn't have to? I mean why would you? What possible advantage is there?
And I agree this is a problem for those that are too old to use cards. It is a real problem for them to get the cash in the first place and a problem that they are excluded from purchasing stuff from place that refuse it.
1. toleration of / disgust with Trump: I think many swing voters will be hardened against him after the shenanigans of 2020
2. dissatisfaction with the incumbent: last time Trump was the unpopular incumbent. Now he's the challenger again - people may have forgotten just was an ineffectual president he was
Infantino once again talking crap. Honestly an egg with a face painted on it would be a better head of FIFA.
Then Labour lost the general election, and the Coalition Government took over. The Tories, of course, wanted to raise top-up fees to £15,000 or thereabouts, Labour were supposedly committed to £9000. The Lib Dems, in government, held the increase down to £9000, and were blamed most unjustly by everybody for the increase.
It's an unfair world, of course, but really Labour ought to have taken the blame for all the tuition fees problem.
So, we can't say his share of the vote will be down. It might be so but so might Biden's - if Cornel West runs for the Greens and there is a genuine third party candidate, it is easy to see Biden being more impacted than Trump.
Also, I think your statement that "I can't see how he wins in November unless he and the GOP do some serious and widespread 'racketeering' on the voting process." is probably shared in D-circles in the United States but it has serious threatening implications for democracy. What you are essentially saying is that, even Trump 'wins', it is legitimate NOT to accept him as President because there is no way he could have won legitimately. In which case, not sure how that is different from election denying...
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt2814362/?ref_=ext_shr_lnk
Too close to neutral for Qs 2/3 for an answer/identity; elements of both.